From PowerlineBlog.com: “Let Your Voice Be Heard”

The following excerpt is from PowerlineBlog.com

With the House of Representatives scheduled to vote on Nancy Pelosi's health care takeover bill, a watershed moment in American history is fast approaching. In this video, Congressman Mike Pence puts the battle over health care in the context of freedom and of the relationship between the individual and the state: [watch video]
Only massive public opposition has a chance to stop the federal usurpation that the Democrats are planning.

The House Republican Conference, meanwhile, has gone to the Herculean effort of tabulating the new federal boards, bureaucracies, commissions, and programs that would be established by the House bill--all in the name of cutting costs, of course! They add up to 111: [see list]

After viewing the list, how would you answer these questions:
1. Where can I find the specific cost allocated to each of these items?
2. How many new Government employees will be needed to administer these items?
3. How many of these items are necessary in order to achieve the goal of reducing health costs or health insurance premiums?
4. How many of these items, if they were necessary, could be handled by existing bureaucracies instead of starting new ones?
5. Which makes more sense, 111 new programs, bureaucracies, and boards that amount to a takeover of 16% of the American economy as seen here , OR the much less radical approach described by Republican Leader John Boehner: “There is a better way. Republicans have offered solutions to lower health care costs and expand access at a cost our nation can afford. You can read about them at www.healthcare.gop.gov."

RE: "Decline is A Choice"

I often like the comments I hear from Charles Krauthammer and read his online posts whenever I can. This one in The Weekly Standard entitled "Decline Is A Choice" shows his gift of stepping back and getting a perspective that is generally missed by others. Two quotes give a window into his insights and make me think about what I must do to help America make the right choice:

"For America today, decline is not a condition. Decline is a choice. Two decades into the unipolar world that came about with the fall of the Soviet Union, America is in the position of deciding whether to abdicate or retain its dominance. Decline--or continued ascendancy--is in our hands."

and,

"And there's the rub. For the Europeans there really is a peace dividend, because we provide the peace. They can afford social democracy without the capacity to defend themselves because they can always depend on the United States.
So why not us as well? Because what for Europe is decadence--decline, in both comfort and relative safety--is for us mere denial. Europe can eat, drink, and be merry for America protects her. But for America it's different. If we choose the life of ease, who stands guard for us?"

All of the questions now being debated in Washington (and in real America outside the beltway): Health Care, Afganistan, Iran, Iraq, Stimulus, Energy, The Economy, Jobs, Cap and Trade (or "Cap and Tax"), Education, Immigration, Marriage, Don't Ask Don't Tell, and more--they are just double-sided pieces of a puzzle in which the picture only is revealed toward the end when we see the accumulated pattern of the individual choices made on each separate question.

What can I do? Work to elect those who will stand up and decide not to decline.

What can you do? Read "Decline Is A Choice" and make your own decision.

Being Christian In A Political Debate

I have written previously here and elsewhere about the health care (or health insurance) reform issue. I learned firsthand that stating an opinion in public can encourage debate, but it can also bring out the worst in people.

In a recent ScriptoriumDaily.com post, “7 Suggestions for Christians in the Public Square” John Mark Reynolds wrote “It is hard to talk to someone when you have nothing in common.”

Sometimes it is even hard, but not impossible, to talk with someone when you share some common values because of “how we prioritize values when good come into conflict.” We may “agree on the values”, but prioritize and apply them differently.

A few years back I encountered some faithful Christians with some doctrines that were radically different from mine. I was startled to conclude that they actually believe these things they are saying, but I respected them personally and I realized I needed to continue to relate to them as fellow believers. Sadly, some of them did not reach the same conclusion.

The same thing can happen with the health care debate. That brings us to one of Reynold’s suggestions: "Attacking ideas is different than attacking people". In response to one email about health care I sent which went viral, one person (who admitted that she didn’t know me) named me personally as a “Deather”. She was referring to those who seek disclosure of Barak Obama’s birth certificate and are called “Birthers” (but she didn’t refer to the “Truthers” –9/11 Conspiracy Theorists). Instead of debating the ideas presented, she attacked me.

Reynolds is right though in his 2nd suggestion: “Strong opinions encourage authentic dialogue.” It is only as people with strong convictions speak up and engage in civil debate with others of strong convictions that authentic dialogue takes place. If you strongly disagree with a policy or an idea but say nothing when others present their opinions, there is no dialogue. The recent town hall meetings may have been boisterous (and some participants may have gone over the line at times), but they had the desired effect of getting both sides of the issue before the public and their elected officials.

I encourage you to read the entire article 7 Suggestions for Christians in the Public Square.

In a previous post, John Mark Reynolds quoted Jim Wallis’ comment that health care is a “deeply theological issue, a Biblical issue and a moral issue”, and then replied that “Health care is such a deeply theological, Biblical, and moral issue that it cannot be trusted to the government.

Increasing government control over health care increases the number of ethical issues where government authority will have to be on one side or the other of these disputes.

Sometimes increasing state power is necessary, but it should also be done with care. When religious leaders like Jim Wallis pretend that it is obvious that government should increase its involvement in health care, they have confused the goal (universal basic care) with the means (government programs).”

Again, I encourage you to read the entire article: Too Great a Good for Caesar: Health Care Reform .

There are some health care issues that involve ethical decisions that cannot be entrusted to politicians or bureaucrats whose decisions are politically, not morally, based.

Christians have a responsibility to speak up about moral and ethical issues and not abdicate that responsibility to others. However, we must also be Christian in the manner in which we debate. I applaud John Mark Reynolds for his helpful suggestions as to how that debate can be Christian in tone and manner.

Health Care Reform

I've been reluctant to jump into most political issues on this page. But periodically one comes along that demands a stance. The proposed health care "reform" is one of them.
Everyone says we need reform (regardless of the President's claim that some are standing in the way of reform because they are satisfied with the status quo). There are just competing ideas of what kind of reform is needed.
One kind of reform is akin to updating or remodeling an existing home that has many desirable features and some obsolete ones. The other kind of reform reminds me of the videos of a building being demolished by explosives so a brand new one can be constructed on the site.
National Review Online today has an editorial which succinctly expresses the unbelievable claims that the architect of the new building wants us to buy. Here are the first two paragraphs:
Snake Oil “President Obama’s press conference Wednesday night offered an ideal encapsulation of the Democrats’ case for their health-care-reform proposals: outlandish promises about benefits and patently dishonest denials of the costs. He said essentially all of the uninsured would be covered, the insured could keep their existing coverage and would be guaranteed to keep it if they lost or changed jobs, the quality of care would rise, waste and fraud would be slashed, the deficit would decline, and no one would have to pay a price for all this except a few millionaires. Oh, and by the way, the plan would also “keep government out of health-care decisions.”
If the president can persuade the American public of all that, then maybe we don’t even need medical care — we can just have him tell us all we’re perfectly healthy and we’ll go on our way.”
I have many issues with the proposed demolition of our health care system--too many to list here--and the greatest one is that I fear the loss of freedom that will come with the new system. Returning to my metaphor of a building being demolished, it appears to me that what is being proposed is that we tear down our hospital and replace it with a prison, and bureaucrats will be the guards who restrict our access to needed health care. More later.