Since January 20, 2009, the Obama administration has undertaken a multitude of actions which together constitute government overreach of an intolerable magnitude. In the span of 18 months what slowly began as a quietly collective groan from those who are attentive to such matters, is slowly coalescing into a unified voice of righteous indignation, as Americans of every stripe are beginning to realize just how susceptible we are to destruction from within. I hope that we are not too late.
We are led by a Commander-in-Chief who has repeatedly displayed a certain detachment to, and even disdain for, the Constitution he was sworn to uphold. During his debut on the international stage, he seemed far more comfortable apologizing for America's sins than he was affirming her moral leadership and strength, resulting in a weakening of our standing with global allies while simultaneously emboldening our enemies. He has raised blaming his predecessor for our country's ills to a petulant art form, never tiring of it after 18 months in office. Why doesn't he realize that we tired of his finger-pointing long ago? No self-respecting mother would allow that kind of behavior from her 8-year old, and it is embarrassing to see it in my President.
Domestically, in Obama's hostile takeover of entire sectors of private enterprise, he has caused structural damage to our economy and stifled growth like no other leader in recent memory. One of the more egregious examples of his control-freak style of governing includes his legion of non-vetted, personally appointed czars with far-reaching powers, all of whom are free to operate with neither the benefit of congressional oversight nor the scrutiny of the American public who pays their salaries. This goes entirely counter to the very principal of checks and balances that our form of government was structured to uphold. Another example is Obama's use of the public's checkbook to purchase private corporations (GM), while simultaneously preserving bloated and unsustainable union deals (which were, not surprisingly, part and parcel of GM's downfall in the first place).
There are other violations and usurpations, but the one with the most immense negative consequences may be the healthcare overhaul (which may itself be disastrously surpassed by the financial overhaul, but we will have to wait and see how that monstrosity shakes out). In this convoluted patchwork of regulations, there are a multitude of issues with which to find fault. One that is clear is the requirement for a citizen to purchase a product (insurance) simply because they are breathing. This has never been done before, is not permissible under the constitution, and runs completely counter to the very notion of individual liberty embodied in our founding documents. In subsequent lawsuits (not surprisingly) brought on by several states, I have read that the government will apparently refute this claim of unconstitutionality by claiming that the fees imposed for non-compliance amount to nothing more than a 'tax' and are therefore constitutional. Now if that makes sense to you, I'd like to hear how. Never mind we were promised otherwise. Promises, we are learning, are for people, not potentates.
Up until now America has been a leader in healthcare outcomes, and has stood at the forefront of medical innovation and new technologies to further improve those outcomes. Leaders from other countries don't go to France or England for their surgeries - they come to the United States. There are problems with our system, to be sure, but what we have produced in this monstrosity is akin to going to the doctor for a migraine and having him perform a full frontal lobotomy. The truth is that in America, virtually everyone has access to health care, but not everyone has access to health insurance. Now that will change. Everyone will have access to health insurance, but not everyone will have access to health care. Because rationing is coming; it is inevitable in the system Obama built. Is this the 'change' we were looking for?
The usurpation of our liberties and freedom by the sometimes illegal actions of this administration must be met with appropriate and serious challenges. We have waited too long to continue to 'hope for the best', as we have watched too many of our precious freedoms melt away like sealing wax. Hope doesn't make wrong right, hope doesn't improve our economy, hope doesn't improve our standing internationally, and hope doesn't win wars. A return to the founding principles embodied in our constitution is the only thing that can turn this ship around before it sails off into the ash heap of what could have been, had we not let our country go.
15 comments:
Good start Pat. Now, i bet you will get some feedback on this from others. Have fun. :)
There's a lot of stuff to chew on here Pat, thanks. I do have one question for the moment - is "having access to healthcare" the same as having access to *preventive* healthcare? Even if Americans had access to healthcare (pre- Obamacare), I haven't seen evidence of access to the kind of healthcare that prevents the need for access to extremely expensive healthcare. Emergency healthcare will always be needed, but as one's standard healthcare package it is bad for business (hospitals must provide unreimbursed care) and bad for individuals (who get saddled with exorbitant debt they cannot possibly pay). I'm not convinced the current healthcare bill is a better solution to this problem, but I don't see that leaving the original problem "as-is" is any better. What *should* the healthcare bill have done instead of what it did?
First of all, preventive health care doesn't begin with insurance companies or governments; preventive health care begins with the consumer. It is in THEIR best interest to be proactive in managing their own health, but just as I can't pull the cigarette out of someone's mouth or put a helmet on their head, neither I nor the government can (or should) micromanage someone else's health (and infringe on their individual liberty) by making sure they 'do what they should'. Whether or not preventive health care is covered by insurance is a function of the company one purchases from and the type of plan one buys. High level coverage of preventive care is the norm in 'cadillac' policies, their high cost being the reason for their name. I agree that it would be nice to have more preventive care covered in 'basic services' policies, and I would think that if there is empirical evidence to show that coverage of same leads to lower overall healthcare costs for insurers, they would cover it. My guess is that there is not conclusive evidence to show that, or else the insurers would be offering it already. This is just my guess. I do disagree with you that preventive health care was a big impetus in pushing healthcare reform during the debate. I thought the biggest problem was the uninsured - they were practically dying in the streets according to some.
As to your 'what would I do', I am no expert but here's what I would do:
#1. buy health insurance for every person too poor to afford one, using a portion of the leftover stimulus funds;
#2. permit purchase of health insurance across state lines for individuals and businesses;
#3. allow small companies to form pools for the purpose of gaining purchasing power and lowering their insurance costs;
#4. craft serious tort reform legislation so that doctors could once again practice medicine in the best interests of their patients, as opposed to today's defensive medicine posture (designed to cover docs in the case of a lawsuit) which accounts for a lot of wasteful spending, not to mention exorbitant malpractice insurance premiums.
The above could be done for a fraction of what we are going to be spending on the new plan, and without a massive expansion of government.
Ecclesiastes 10
1 As dead flies give perfume a bad smell,
so a little folly outweighs wisdom and honor.
2 The heart of the wise inclines to the right,
but the heart of the fool to the left.
3 Even as he walks along the road,
the fool lacks sense
and shows everyone how stupid he is.
4 If a ruler's anger rises against you,
do not leave your post;
calmness can lay great errors to rest.
5 There is an evil I have seen under the sun,
the sort of error that arises from a ruler:
6 Fools are put in many high positions,
while the rich occupy the low ones.
7 I have seen slaves on horseback,
while princes go on foot like slaves.
8 Whoever digs a pit may fall into it;
whoever breaks through a wall may be bitten by a snake.
9 Whoever quarries stones may be injured by them;
whoever splits logs may be endangered by them.
10 If the ax is dull
and its edge unsharpened,
more strength is needed
but skill will bring success.
11 If a snake bites before it is charmed,
there is no profit for the charmer.
12 Words from a wise man's mouth are gracious,
but a fool is consumed by his own lips.
13 At the beginning his words are folly;
at the end they are wicked madness-
14 and the fool multiplies words.
No one knows what is coming—
who can tell him what will happen after him?
15 A fool's work wearies him;
he does not know the way to town.
16 Woe to you, O land whose king was a servant [a]
and whose princes feast in the morning.
17 Blessed are you, O land whose king is of noble birth
and whose princes eat at a proper time—
for strength and not for drunkenness.
18 If a man is lazy, the rafters sag;
if his hands are idle, the house leaks.
19 A feast is made for laughter,
and wine makes life merry,
but money is the answer for everything.
20 Do not revile the king even in your thoughts,
or curse the rich in your bedroom,
because a bird of the air may carry your words,
and a bird on the wing may report what you say.
Pat, your healthcare approach sounds pretty good to me. That's what I like to hear, *real* alternatives, not naysaying.
Rob, I'm not sure what you are trying to say with the Ecclesiastes passage. Being posted after my comment, and given its content, it could easily be taken as a personal attack and insult, so please explain. Thanks.
Ecclesiastes, you say that about everything I write. I'm used to it. So, no, I will not explain.
All I ask is that you focus on clarity not confusion.
The bible doesn’t focus on collective salvation (justice). It does focus on individual salvation. I see much of what you write or advocate as more in the vain of social or collective justice or salvation. That may not be what you are saying but it comes across to me as such. I think that can be used to confuse believers more than help them.
But, thanks, I am reading Ecclesiastes with a new eye.
"The bible doesn’t focus on collective salvation (justice). It does focus on individual salvation."
You are certainly correct with the second statement, but I believe you are in error with the first. The Biblical narrative is replete with focus on both individual and communal redemption. For those raised with a half-gospel (individual-only salvation) like I was, being challenged with the full spectrum of the Biblical message is very confusing and threatening - so much so that it becomes possible, for the sake of assuaging fears and promoting clarity, to read the entire Bible while ignoring half of its message. I know it is possible, because I've done it. I sincerely hope for the Church that we can embrace the completeness of God's revelation to us, not just the parts that are clear and comfortable.
But you are right Rob in noting that what I say can be used for the *purpose* of confusing believers. That is not my purpose, but I understand that it can be seen and used that way.
Ron - Are you saying that the bible *does* focus on collective salvation? What do you mean by that?
It's hard to sum up Biblical theology in a few lines on a blog post. Here are a few ways in which the Biblical focus addresses the communal dimension of redemption:
--throughout the Old Testament, God relates to Israel as a nation. Key figures in the narrative have personal relationships with God...but even then, the *purpose* of that relationship is of national importance. ("National" not primarily as in "nation-state" but "nationality", i.e. the people of God.) Israel as a *nation* was to be a light to the rest of the world - to bring other nations to God. The OT portrays nations not as "collections of individuals" but as real entities in themselves, that have an existence and a purpose to fulfill or at which to fail.
--most, if not all, of the major and minor OT prophets speak about Israel's responsibility to its own poor, widows, and orphans -- and also decry the miscarriage of justice .... not the miscarriage of legal justice (although that's not overlooked), but of justice as in "right relationship". (Some people would call that social justice, but folks like Glenn Beck have adulterated that term to mean something entirely different.)
--The New Testament's primary collective focus is the "Kingdom of God". Contemporary dilution of this term has changed it to mean "heaven" ... i.e., if you want to go to heaven ("enter the Kingdom of God") you have to ask Jesus in your heart. Again, this individual salvation is important, but heaven <> Kingdom of God. The Kingdom of God is among us even as we speak - it is wherever God's authority reigns. This can happen on a personal dimension, but also on a societal, structural dimension. The purpose of "individual salvation" is not to get to heaven, but to restore us to our place in the working society of Christ's body. The Kingdom is at hand because it begins now and extends into eternity. (A good book that explicates the Kingdom of God very well - showing the relationship between individual salvation and the societal redemption it should lead to - is Dallas Willard's *The Divine Conspiracy*. A meaty read, but very worth it)
--Final example for now: The creation groans, waiting with eager expectation for the sons of God to be revealed (paraphrasing Paul here). Central to the plan of salvation is the personal salvation of the children of God...but we are positioned as the leaders in the redemption of all creation. That's hugely more "collective" than personal salvation.
I hope this clarifies?
Actually Ron, no, it doesn't clarify - I think either your thinking or your explanation is a little murky.
It appears to me that you confuse our pluralistic and secular society with The Body of Christ/Kingdom of God, and therefore your 'societal, structural dimension' is amiss if you are including those outside The Body in the same collective mass as those within it. You are correct in asserting "Israel's responsibility to its *own* poor, widows, and orphans", but I would draw your attention to the fact that they were directed to take care of their own, and not outsiders (with certain exceptions as outlined in scripture). This is not to say that Christians do not have a greater burden than those living in OT times to reach outside The Body (Israel was called to be a light to the other nations, but was not called to carry their light *into* the other tribes).
I think where we most distinctly part company is in our view of the role of government. I may be wrong, but I think that you have a tendency to impart biblical mandates on government, which, like many well-meaning but wrong-headed ideas, is fraught with negative consequences for the governed.
Thanks Pat.
Unfortunately I can never seem to get my point across re: government; it is not that I believe government is to be the "saving agent" or the executor of biblical mandates. The issue is that I do not believe I should oppose the government filling the hole where Christians clearly have not, are not, and will not. The only proper opposition is to fill the hole with something other than government. If the body of Christ does that, then there is no 'demand' for the services of the government. I do not see that happening; too many Christians are focused on wresting political power and control of society via the government...ironically--imparting Biblical mandates on government. That's not what I'm after at all.
Clearly demarcating the Kingdom of God as something separate, distinct, and isolated from our pluralistic and secular society, I believe, is wrong and dangerous. But it's easy to find Biblical justification to do so. Historically, the mission of Israel to "be separate", and conquer the promised land, has been used as justification to subjugate, murder, and oppress other peoples in the name of God and "Manifest Destiny", as just one example of that danger.
Sadly: if you mean to say that Christians have no ultimate responsibility to 'pluralistic and secular society', and if such abdication of responsibility is a hallmark of Christian faith, then I am clearly not a 'Christian' and have no intent of ever being one.
Thanks Ron - You're right; at this point we are starting to run aground in terms of understanding each other on this post, but I *think* I see where you are coming from.
I don't however, know how you can end your post by suggesting that I meant 'Christians have no ultimate responsibility to...[others]...', and even worse, that I would possibly view such abdication as a 'hallmark' of my faith. That's less than fair, given not only what you know of me, but even more so when I clearly stated that we have a burden to reach outside the church to help others...
Let's leave it at that then - we both agree that as Christians we can and need to do more to be the hands of Jesus in a dark and hurting world.
Amen and amen?
I am sorry Pat, I did not mean to speak unfairly and react too quickly. It is my own history with being subjected to divisive teaching that leads me to overreact and unfairly characterize your distinction between the body of Christ and secular society. My hypersensitivity to the excluded, ridiculed, outcast, and marginalized is both a strength and a weakness.
And I certainly do agree - we can and need to do more to be the hands of Jesus in a dark and hurting world. Or perhaps the feet, eyes, mouth, ears, etc. of Jesus ... differences are 'hallmarks' of the body of Christ, according to Paul, and just as each part of the body needs each other, it also makes sense that each part may work in different ways when it comes to exercising ministry outside of the body. The eye cannot stand a pin prick as well as the hand ... not because it is weak, but because it has a different purpose. Hands can feel, and hold, and accomplish many things, but can never see light and dark, or color. I'm not saying you and I are necessarily analogous to one or the other, but in many respects it seems our differences are as vast as hand and eye. According to God's Word, that's a good thing.
Thanks Ron for a gracious reply. I can sympathize with your comments about your history - our past can unexpectedly cause us to react to things in ways (we hope) we might not otherwise. Fortunately God has a use for our past, warts and all (at least in my case)!
I love what Bruce Bickel said one time about his many wounds from Vietnam (I think he ended up having 27 surgeries after he came home). I don't know why it struck me so deeply, but I'll never forget it. He said that ALL OF LIFE IS PREPARATION FOR MINISTRY. This was in the context of him not knowing what possible purpose God could have for all of the damage to his body and the pain he endured. Now many years later he can look back and see how God used his experiences to minister to others in surprising ways.
I like your comments on the various parts and functions within the body; I never thought about how one part may be better equipped to handle certain types of adversity than another...good food for thought...
Thanks Pat - again, you have shown that Faith in Christ, and the Unity of the Body, trumps differences! Thank you for your firm commitments and your gracious acceptance. Few people can successfully attain both.
Post a Comment