opa-opines.net

In recent years, I have heard numerous complaints about Medicare. Some pundits call Medicare “socialized medicine”. Others complain that it is too expensive. Some physicians say that medicare requires too many forms, has too many rules, pays them too little, and is very slow at processing claims. Many of these complaints are fuel for debates among politicians. Some politicians have suggested eliminating the program.

We must remember why medicare was created in the first place. Before Medicare was legislated in 1965, seniors faced a health care crisis. Only one in eight elder Americans had health insurance and the policies issued to seasoned Americans was not comprehensive. When an older American developed a chronic condition such as heart disease, the cost of their medical care was prohibitive. Insurance companies that provided policies to seniors considered them “illness prone” and “bad risks”. Premiums for elder Americans steadily increased and many insurers refused to sell policies. Congressional hearings during the early 1960′s concluded that private insurers were “incapable” of providing comprehensive coverage for older Americans. So starting in 1965 medicare became available for any American who qualified for Social Security. In 1972 it was extended to the disabled. Not only did older Americans want the Medicare program but, private insurers supported the program, corporations and unions who had policies for their workers wanted their policy holders transferred to Medicare.

The facts reveal a complex governmental program. In the late 1940s and 50s, when Medicare was first conceived, it was directed toward seniors without other medical benefits. Lobbyists became involved and slowly broadened the program. Large corporations with retirement health benefits for their workers persuaded congress to mandate that Medicare would cover their retired employees who were 65 or older. Unions with benefit funds jumped on the bandwagon. Many state governments joined. Finally, the federal government itself legislated that all federal retirees over 65 should be included. Currently anyone who worked at a job that required payment of Social Security Tax, was employed for 10 years, and is 65 or older, may apply for medicare. If eligible people who receive social security, do not apply, they are automatically enrolled.

Would private insurers be more efficient than Medicare? No, private insurers spend and average of 15-20 percent of their assets on administration, leaving only 80 percent for benefits. Medicare spends 2 percent on administration, leaving 98 percent for benefits. Some opponents claim that “hidden costs” raise the administrative costs of Medicare to 5 Percent. If they are accurate that still means 95 percent for benefits, a 15 percent efficiency gain over private insurance. Finally, those who wish to privatize medicare must remember that private insurers formerly offered such insurance and wanted out of the business as it was not profitable – it was too much of a risk.

My brief research suggests that Medicare must be here to stay. Instead of complaining about the program, why not suggest changing the portions of Medicare that are not effective? Streamline the forms and possibly computerize them. As “socialized medicine” the VA solved numerous problems in medical practice. For many years the VA has used a system where a physician writes a computerized prescription which automatically is available to the pharmacy or to any other treatment or diagnostic service in the system. If it is “socialized medicine” then we note that the Veterans Administration provides some of the best care possible, provides research and development that generates improved medical devices and procedures to society. The VA may be “socialized medicine” but as a veteran I can attest that it is wonderful competent medical care. If opponents claim some other “evil” then we fix it. Let us accept a program that works instead of making the huge mistake of killing the program because of politics.

So, lobbyists and members of Congress, let us cease to complain, recognize that Medicare is a jewel, maybe streamline it a bit and stop making it a political football.

John McCain wants me to be concerned that Obama has been associated with William Ayers of Chicago. Obama’s forces want me to be concerned about McCain’s close relationship with Charles Keating. Both sides claim that associating with such men is a matter of poor judgment. That it is a matter of judgment is very true, but what sort of judgment are we discussing? Was it that they did not have all “associates” investigated, or is it that they accepted the people without judging them? I am concerned about this situation for several reasons.

First, I have been associated with a lot of people in my life. I was affiliated with and worked with hundreds of people when I taught at various universities. For example, at the University of Central Arkansas I sponsored Omega Psi Phi fraternity without asking for background checks for each member. I did not stay in close contact with those men and have no idea whether any of them were ever in trouble with the law. Accordingly, I and anyone else who worked at a university, should never enter politics as we are very vulnerable to such attacks.

Second, in our legal system a person is innocent until proven guilty. William Ayers admits he was a member of the “weathermen” group in the nineteen sixties. The weathermen as a group claimed responsibility for bombings in several federal buildings. Some of the group were found guilty of those crimes and sent to prison. William Ayers was never convicted of anything. Seems to me that I have a choice to either not judge Ayers or to reject our concept of innocent until proven guilty.

Third, in my faith I am told to forgive. In Matthew 18:21-22, Jesus suggests that I always forgive no matter how many times I am injured. So I have a choice to either revise my image of someone like Ayers who may have sinned, or to reject the teaching of Jesus on this matter.

Fourth, is it possible for people to sin, be redeemed, and amend their life? Jesus said that He came to redeem and to forgives us our sins.  So, McCain was involved with the Keating scandal and the financial crises that resulted, but he apologized and vowed to change his life.   Again, I have a choice to either revise my image of McCain, or to reject the teaching of Jesus concerning our ability to amend our lives.

Fifth, with what types of people should I associate? In my faith Jesus sets the example and is criticized for it.     Matthew 9:10-12 While he was at table in his house, many tax collectors and sinners came and sat with Jesus and his disciples. The Pharisees saw this and said to his disciples, “Why does your teacher eat with tax collectors and sinners?” He heard this and said, “Those who are well do not need a physician, but the sick do.”      Jesus is criticized, not for his words, deeds, or character, but for associating with undesirable people. How can I, as a Christian, condemn a politician for associating with people who I may not approve?   

Can I judge these candidates, not on the people they encountered in their life, but upon their character, the issues they discuss, and the philosophy they represent?  I certainly pray that I can.

John McCain has been a bit of a hero to me since I learned of his sacrifice in a Hanoi POW camp. I followed his successful political career and decided that John is the one that knows about the sacrifices that are so much a part of military service and would naturally support veterans. Recently I learned that my assumptions may be false.

McCain says: “I’ve received every award from every major veteran’s organization in America. The reason why I have a perfect voting record from organizations like the Veterans of Foreign Wars, the American Legion and all the other veterans service organizations is because of my support of them.”

I checked with the veterans groups and: McCain received a grade of D from the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America and a 20 percent vote rating from the Disabled Veterans of America; Vietnam Veterans of America noted McCain has “voted against us” in 15 “key votes.” As for the American Legion and the Veterans of Foreign Wars — with whom McCain claims to have a “perfect voting record” — both groups vigorously supported Sen. Jim Webb’s (D-VA) GI Bill that McCain tirelessly opposed and on which he skipped the vote.

So dear John please tell me that the following record is not true*.

Aug, 01 – McCain voted against $650M for medical care for veterans.

Apr, 03 – McCain voted to “table” an action to provide $1B for National Guard and Reserve equipment, including: helmets, tents, bullet- proof inserts, and tactical vests. The Guard and Reserve provide about half of our combat troops in Iraq.

Oct, 03 – McCain voted to “table” and amendment to provide $320M for safety equipment for our troops in Iraq.

Mar 04 – McCain voted against $1.8 B for the Veterans Administration. The VA has responsibility for caring for our wounded troops.

Mar 06 – McCain voted against $1.5B for the Veterans Administration

Apr 06 – McCain was 1 of only 13 Senators voting against $430M for VA outpatient care and medical treatment for veterans.

May 06 – McCain voted against an amendment to provide $20M for VA health facilities.

Sep 07, McCain voted against the Webb amendment calling for adequate rest between deployments (combat troops).

McCain also missed over a dozen more bills for Iraq support.

John McCain is our most visible military veteran. If veterans can not depend upon him as Senator, what can we expect if he becomes President.

Say it isn’t so!      

* 1st source: Veterans for Common Sense (checked against voting records)

Politicians speak about abortion – but do not solve the problem. The church’s peace and social justice doctrine is ignored by those same politicians.  Some web sites claim there is a “Christian vote” – shouldn’t a “Christian Vote” support most of the doctrines of Jesus Christ and His church?  Currently “Christian” politicians agree mostly to fight abortion.

Let us look at the one issue Christian Vote? The Bible doesn’t mention abortion.  I think we derive that from the Old Testament’s Ten Commandments.  And I believe that we should follow the commandment “thou shall not kill.”  Aborting babies is unacceptable.  Killing civilians in war is unacceptable.   Mercy killing is unacceptable.  My Christian faith, however, also includes the teachings of Jesus in the New Testament.

In Matthew 5:17, Jesus tell us that He fulfils the law, and in MT 22:36-40 that there are only two commandments, love god and love your neighbor as  yourself.  Jesus says that The whole law and the prophets depend on these two commandments.  If we love God and each other we won’t break any of the Ten Commandments.

Jesus provides us with many statements concerning the church’s peace and justice issues. Jesus gives us guidance concerning our treatment of our neighbors in Luke 10:29-37, the Parable of the Good Samaritan.

The Bible tells us in MT 25:31-46 to feed the hungry, provide drink for the thirsty, welcome strangers, clothe the naked, care for the ill, and visit those in prison.  We are told in Romans 12:9-21 to pray, exercise hospitality, bless those who persecute us, and avoid vengeance. Also we are directed to live at peace, weep with those who weep, feed our enemies and give them drink.  The New Testament talks to us about healing the sick, lame, and deaf.  We are asked to care for the blind and the poor.

We are also asked to avoid judging each other. In MT 7:1-4 we are told to stop judging and focus upon our own sins.  In LK 6:37 we are asked to stop judging to avoid being judged. Roman 2:1-6 indicates that by judging we condemn ourselves.  And Romans 14:10-13 asks us not to despise those who disagree with us.  Accordingly I do not want to allow myself to have negative feelings about any candidate for office regardless of their position on issues.  I am allowed to not vote for them.                  

With all the messages Jesus provides concerning the poor, ill, disadvantaged, and outcasts, where, should I put my priorities?  Do I support an anti abortion plan that has not worked.  Or should I turn my efforts to Christian social actions that may actually have an impact on me, my faith and my neighbor?

The emphasis upon a single Christian issue would be acceptable to me if the action showed much chance of success.  Until such a plan is presented, Christians may want to put their efforts on plans that make a difference to our Christian faith.

Some pro life groups are starting to ask for our vote for “self labeled” pro life candidates. My response is simple:  Please give us a plan that will work! I have voted for pro life candidates for many years. Roe v Wade became a problem in 1973 and little progress has been made to modify it.  What have the people we voted into office done about abortion? Very little. Years ago Congress or a state would pass laws restricting abortions, only to have them struck down by the Supreme Court. Lately most legislators have stopped trying. The church has focused effort upon electing a pro life President. Since the President does not make law, the intention must be to have him appoint pro life friendly justices. George Bush appointed two during the last eight years.

 

When will we learn? The only way to eliminate abortion is with a Constitutional amendment! If the Supreme Court changes Roe v Wade, it can later change it back (the current court has proven that they can change pre-existing decisions!).  We elect “pro life” members of congress and they do nothing about abortion!   I am very disappointed with some because of this in-action.

 

I am tired of false hopes and failure on this matter.  All our political abortion campaign has done is upset people.  Our current strategy is a waste of our efforts.  I no longer want to support candidates that give us “lip service” but no action.  Let us solve this moral evil permanently.

 

Surely this one issue unites most Christian denominations.  If churches unite we can do this. Since Christian churches really are against abortion, they must use their vast resources to get some experts to write a powerful amendment, demand a special convention (Constitution Article V), and push the amendment.  Even I can read Article V of the Constitution – there is a way!  Let us all write our church leaders and ask them to lead this effort. Without that effort, please do not ask for our “one issue” vote.

 

 

 

 

Today, since she had captured massive news coverage, let us look at Sarah Palin’s appearance at the Republican convention.

It is clear to me that whether a person is “qualified” to be President is a matter of opinion. I think a President must be our leader. A leader should have our confidence, inspire us, should be able to stimulate our imagination and excite our dreams. Such qualities are not best judged by a list of jobs held. These qualities constitute personal traits, talents, gifts. Maybe the best qualification for President is character.

Recently I received an blog claiming to present military causality “facts” that stated that more U.S. soldiers died during the years of Bill Clinton’s presidency than have died during the Bush years.

I appreciate the positive spots as they really help me judge the candidate’s qualifications.   The negative spots are simply not helpful. When one paints the opponent as bad news that we can not afford, I find myself offended. It seems to me that it is the job of a nominee to be honorable by delivering messages concerning what he will do, and what he believes. However, negative ads do only harm. People can be deceived into voting against a competitor who would be their best choice for the office. Doesn’t deceiving people show a lack of “honor”, show a flaw in “character”?