I Am Not A Monster
Can't we tone down the rhetoric long enough to agree on some very basic premises?
- It is a great tragedy when a person dies prematurely for financial reasons
- It is a tragedy when a person becomes indigent or bankrupt due to medical expenses
- It is most appropriate for the patient to be in charge of decisions regarding the level of his or her own care
- Individuals have many opportunities that go wasted to improve their health through lifestyle choices
- Divorcing costs from decision-making leads to unnecessary expenses
- The profit motive has fostered many great advances in the field of medicine
- We can't afford all the guns AND all the butter (economics 101 [or 10], anyone?)

I'm open to nominations! What else can we agree on?

I think people should be able to buy catastrophic coverage (which is not legal in many [most?] states) and pay for routine treatment on their own, even if they need to compensate by buying an older car, a smaller house, or a less rad TV. I think doctors, nurses, and hospitals should have to make their charges public. Those things alone would drive down health care costs considerably. Churches should be providing primary care services for those who still can't afford it.

I think we need to face the fact that most of us can afford to spend a LOT more on our health care than we do now. If you had to give up unlimited texting for a year to pay for a medical procedure, would that really be a tragedy? Medical care is very important, and now that we have the array of technologies that we have, we should expect cutting-edge treatment to be expensive. Because it is. Budget for it.

On the political side, here are my comments:
Funny to see the Democrats turn into the party of black and white. "Health care is a right". There are different standards of care, and even with the most extreme treatment available, nobody lives forever. There are treatments that incrementally prolong someone's life. We can't keep everybody on them forever. Who would you like to be in charge of deciding when to stop resuscitating you, putting nourishment in your feeding tube, defibrillating you, or pumping oxygen into your lungs? What does "fair" mean in this context? One size does not fit all.

(I'm probably more testy than a Christian ought to be, but I'm so tired of the "they're cold &%^$8#@ who don't care about poor people")

Labels: healthcare, politics

- posted by Lenise @ 11:06 PM |

 
What's in a Name?
A lot, if it's 1917 and you're Russian. The name "Bolshevik" roughly translates to "member of the majority/greater party", while the opposing "Menshevik" has a corresponding meaning, i.e. "member of the minority/lesser party". As it turns out, the Bolsheviks were NOT actually more numerous than the "Mensheviks", but in a culture not given to much questioning or critical thought, these appellations were taken at face value, and may have played a large role in the eventual domination of the "Bolshevik" party.

I wonder whether our society is as interested in serious examination and critical synthesis of facts and issues as it once was. I doubt it. In many ways, we seem to be attracted to the simple and the easily absorbed. We can keep track of which celebrities have been married (and to whom), who won the last 10 Super Bowls (or NCAA basketball tournaments), and which recording artists got their start on American Idol. When it comes to sustained examination of an issue, our increasingly sensorily-overloaded psyches go ADHD (I know I have that tendency).

When all the major TV network newscasters, major-market newspaper editors, and federally-funded radio talk shows lean leftward, do we as a culture have sufficient capability of sustained critical thought to see through their biases as they insidiously color the commentary we receive on world events?

And by the way, how does Garrison Keillor think it's OK to ridicule W's courageous struggle with alcoholism on national radio, after the man's left the presidency, for heaven's sake? Is alcoholism a joke now, or is W simply not a human being? And that bit about how everything he did was "stupid"? This is how A Prairie Home Companion honors returning veterans? Please show some decency, NPR. This is disgraceful.

Labels: history, politics

- posted by Lenise @ 2:16 PM |

 
The Audacity of Hope or a Rare Political Complaint
Brenda dares to hope that President Obama will re-think his stance on abortion. That is audacious indeed. I know I should wish the new administration well; I certainly don't want the recession to deepen, or health insurance to become completely unfeasible, or terrorists to kill my countrymen (here or abroad). In that sense, I do wish President Obama well. However, I find myself struggling with a great deal of reluctance for several reasons.

1. Most fundamentally, I don't believe that the Democratic party has the answers or will even move us in the right direction. I am ideologically opposed to just about everything they've chosen to make an issue of for pretty much my entire adult life. I have studied economics, and a lot of things have to go right for a socialist economy to prosper. As far as I can tell, Sweden is about the only one that meets those conditions. Elsewhere, socialism is in a heap of trouble.

2. I am a cynic. "Hoping" at the behest of a politician, particularly one with whom I do not agree, ain't gonna happen. James Madison asserted that if men were angels, government would not be necessary, and politicians have proven time and again that they are not in danger of immediately joining the heavenly choir. The way the left has latched onto every possible weapon to castigate the Bush administration has reinforced my utter lack of trust in them and their machinations. As others have pointed out, how can W be both an idiot and an evil genius? And yet, many seem to hold these conflicting ideas and cherish them in their hearts as a means of dehumanizing a man with the heaviest responsibilities on earth confronting an awful reality not of his own making.

3. Respecting a member of a group of people who have collectively treated my ideas (and we who hold them) with utter disdain and vitriolic contempt is not easy for me. I have heard references to "those idiots who voted for Bush" from people I respect and like. Some of my good friends act as though it is quite obvious that our outgoing president is a moral degenerate simply because the consequences of consequential policies include both tragedy and triumph- every time. Even if the policy is to do nothing, there are likely tragic outcomes.


As a Christian, I realize that it is my responsibility to show Christ's love to all humanity. The truth is, I'm not doing so well. I've been wounded by some whom I hold dear, and it is easy to deflect that bitterness onto those I don't know who have said the same things and benefited from a general tar-and-feathering of us conservatives. Christ's mercy is so much greater than mine, but I can not disregard it, nor his command to love. Pray for the new president, and for us who are left with stiff necks, mired in our human pride.

Labels: politics

- posted by Lenise @ 7:50 PM |

 
Before the Purloined Pastry
I was going to link to this article. Thank you, sir!

Labels: policy, politics

- posted by Lenise @ 8:42 PM |

 
Yuppie, Go Home!
The other week I was driving to or from work and saw a bumper sticker that said: "Protect our Troops: Bring Them Home" or something along those lines. Well, sorry, pal, but the soldiers I know are not interested in being protected by a middle-aged yuppie with his senator on speed-dial. The troops I know are men committed to the protection of government of, by, and for the people. They are willing to put their lives on the line to protect young mothers, grandparents, babies, retired veterans, children, teenagers, and even middle-aged yuppies who enjoy the blessings of freedom. There is such a thing as heroism, and believe me, it costs a whole lot more than a bumper sticker.

Labels: commute, politics

- posted by Lenise @ 10:04 PM |

 
I Guess It's Just Me
Our local news channel's website features an article/video segment entitled "Palin Facing Voters Who Doubt Her Readiness". I guess I'm alone in doubting Obama's readiness, though he seems to have significantly less experience and is running for, um, President. Never mind those of us who doubt Sen. Biden's sincerity... Maybe those doubts are just not newsworthy...

Labels: politics

- posted by Lenise @ 10:21 AM |

 
Ambivalence
I'm not excited about the presidential candidates as the field stands. Those of you who know me know I won't be even pondering the Democratic field. Of the Republicans, Thompson and Huckabee have the greatest share of my interest, though Thompson seems like a lost cause already, and I'm worried that Huckabee's self-proclaimed Christianity will end up being a stumbling block to people. He doesn't seem to have the integrity of our current president (not that W's integrity has made much of an impression on the left), which just turns me off. His attack on W's foreign policy makes me think I'm not going to like his ideas at all. And then, to top it all off, the man's name is Huckabee. Enough said.

Labels: politics

- posted by Gary @ 12:17 PM |