TrickyBuddha Studios

(word count: 654)

I had an interesting conversation today about health care that more or less revolved around the point that our best hope for reform is an upstart provider – not the politicians. And bringing government-provided health care into the mix doesn’t affect our cost since we’d be paying either way, either directly or through taxation.

I fully understand the suspicion of politicians. I can accept it. But I think anyone who has read this blog in the past knows the fervor with which I support any concept of universal health care (no matter the cost), but I try to keep an open mind.

Even though our current system (which is labeled anywhere from “free market” to “semi-free market” seems to only be lurching toward greater levels of failure, I decided to read up on “free market health care” to see what the proponents felt were the strong points.

And what did I find?

No strong points, really. Possibilities, sure. But these possibilities aren’t playing out.

Rather, my searches were more likely to turn up justifications. 1) It’s OK if a health care provider rejects you. In a free market, you can look elsewhere for help. Probably. 2) The financial health of providers ensures their success. Making money has to be a priority, even if the people lose. 3) People may need health care, but they sure don’t have a right to health care. It’s just like home or auto insurance. 4) If a health care company won’t help you out, then maybe you have some friends or a church who can help.

And none of this takes into account that the health care industry is not recession proof.

This is when I get to the point that I realize I can’t be open-minded on this one. Not because I’m incapable, but because I am not hearing any worthwhile argument. The discussion is fun but fruitless. In an ideal world, the free market system sounds wonderful. But it’s not working for us.

As stated here, “At its root, the lack of health care for all in America is fundamentally a moral issue. The United States is the only industrialized nation that does not have some form of universal health care (defined as a basic guarantee of health care to all of its citizens). While other countries have declared health care to be a basic right, the United States treats health care as a privilege, only available to those who can afford it.”

And I still can’t believe a majority of this country feel otherwise.

We can sit around waiting for an upstart to figure out the business model where it can provide cheap, quality care for most – competing against all the big heavies in a world where we may be able to shrink profit margins but that does not guarantee affordable health care – or we can implement universal health care in one fashion or another, serving everyone, and share the costs. Remember, we are a society.

Check out the amsa.org link above and let me know what you think. It not only lays the groundwork for a moral argument but also an economic argument.

Want a preview? According to a 2005 non-partisan study, “a universal, public financed plan… would save $1.1 trillion over 10 years.” That’s about three times the savings of the alternative solutions, such as expanding Medicaid.

At least I can end this post on a positive note. Reform is coming. “House Democrats, in consultation with the White House, will give Republican lawmakers until September to reach a compromise on President Obama’s signature health-care initiative… [then] lawmakers [will] roll Obama’s health-care proposals into a bill that cannot be filibustered, meaning Democrats could push it through the Senate with 51 votes, instead of the usual 60. Since Democrats control 58 seats in the Senate, they could approve a reconciliation bill without Republican votes or the support of some reluctant conservatives in their own party.” Now we just have to hope that this reform makes things better.

(today’s post: 415 words)

I do follow international news, a little, but I’ve never followed anything related to Israel. In fact, in my President Bob platform, you won’t find a single reference to Israel.

I’ve never once had a gut feeling that the Israeli’s were right or wrong (or that supporting them was right or wrong). And whenever anyone brings it up my eyes glaze over. Recently, thanks to Israel being more news-worthy (because of the war), my eyes are all sorts of glazed.

Coincidentally, a site I frequent posted a link to a Rachel Maddow piece on Israel – suggesting it as perfect starter material for [ignorant] people like me. So I gave it a watch and felt like I learned a little – though my eyes did glaze a little.

Then I read some comments on the post and spotted one that really simplified it. Whew!

The person, if effect, said that it would be as if:

a) persecuted peoples from the Middle East decided to form their own country; b) they invaded a chunk of the US and declared the land theirs; c) they were resisted by the US but held tight thanks to military and financial support from Russia and China; d) they slowly (but widely) grew out their territory to create buffer; e) all of which leads to the US hating Russia, China, and these new conquerors. f) Throughout this process, the conquerors have booted out the previous American residents, taken their homes, and occasionally squelched small bands of ill-equipped-but-occasionally-radical American patriots.

(Why can’t everyone talk like this?)

From what little I’ve read the only issue remaining, in this simplification, is the justification of whether the Middle East invaders have any claim to that chunk of invaded US territory.

And to that I ask if it really matters.

Isn’t conquest a real part of our world? We Americans have no “claim” to our territory other than that we took it. The entire world has been colonized and re-colonized. Maybe God wanted the Israeli’s to have that land. Maybe God wanted anyone but them to have that land. And maybe there’s no such thing as God at all. But Israel took that land and made it their own – and it strikes me as hypocritical for any other conquering nation to criticize them.

Now tell me how foolishly naive and simplistic this post is. But use small words and speak slowly and, if my eyes lose focus, throw in some fun examples to spice up your point. Thanks!

(today’s post: 246 words)

I haven’t commented on “Prop 8″ – because it’s a California ballot proposition and I live in Indiana. Besides, Prop 8 is a small piece of the larger homosexual-rights issue and everyone *should* know that I am 100% in favor of equality (and none of that separate-but-equal nonsense, either).

But I’m going to make a quick observation.

Recently, Newsweek published an article suggesting that although many (most?) traditionalists cite the Bible as the reason homosexuals should not be together in marriage, the Bible does not explicitly define marriage as between one man and one woman. Further, the writer states, the Bible doesn’t exactly display a lot of so-called “traditional” relationships, either. (stay tuned after the post for more on that…)

But if you look at many of the comments from readers, they are of the “I read the article, I see her point, but I hold to my faith and belief that the Bible opposes gay marriage” variety. How do these people accept that the Bible doesn’t define something while simultaneously holding to their faith that it does? It sounds like they want to be ignorant while laying the blame elsewhere.

That said, I find the existence of the article somewhat surprising. I’ve heard a lot of people come out in support of homosexual rights and items like Prop 8, but I haven’t read very many mainstream publications making such critical comments against the “one man, one woman” crowd – or for it, for that matter (most seem uninterested in commenting).

Thoughts?

(I promised a comment on “traditional” relationships. Here you go. This was in response to the Newsweek article, and I spotted it at this site.)

A. Marriage in the United States shall consist of a union between one man and one or more women. (Gen 29:17-28; II Sam 3:2-5)

B. Marriage shall not impede a man’s right to take concubines in  addition to his wife or wives. (II Sam 5:13; I Kings 11:3; II Chron 11:21)

C. A marriage shall be considered valid only if the wife is a  virgin. If the wife is not a virgin, she shall be executed. (Deut 22:13-21)

D. Marriage of a believer and a non-believer shall be forbidden.  (Gen 24:3; Num 25:1-9; Ezra 9:12; Neh 10:30)

E. Since marriage is for life, neither this Constitution nor the constitution of any State, nor any state or federal law, shall be construed to permit divorce. (Deut 22:19; Mark 10:9)

F. If a married man dies without children, his brother shall marry the widow. If he refuses to marry his brother’s widow or deliberately does not give her children, he shall pay a fine of one shoe and be otherwise punished in a manner to be determined by law. (Gen 38:6-10; Deut 25:5-10)

G. In lieu of marriage, if there are no acceptable men in your town, it is required that you get your dad drunk and have sex with him (even if he had previously offered you up as a sex toy to men young and old), tag-teaming with any sisters you may have. Of course, this rule applies only if you are female. (Gen 19:31-36)