FREEDOM THROUGH THE BARS

I've noticed how discussions about healthcare often move quickly from the subject of healthcare to other less central items. For instance, people who have been diagnosed with a serious illness immediately feel compelled to share the guilt they would have, (and we SHOULD have), if someone would have a similar diagnosis without healthcare. Therefore, we need universal healthcare to assuage such. And if your job includes healthcare then you feel guilt about having your job as well. 
Never mind that handing the government absolute control of another 1/6 to 1/5 of our economy will hand them yet more power over the individuals whose votes they so badly want that they will lie, cheat, steal, take bribes, etc., to get. Never mind that this power would singlehandedly  change, in a negative way, the relationship between the government and the governed. This would be one small step to avoid guilt and one huge step for Progressivism. Put another way, another large chunk of our individual rights would be handed over to the ostensibly compassionate and egalitarian government. For the last hundred years or so this country has been undermining its very nature. We have used law against itself and when necessary ignored our founding principles in order to move to the Progressive agenda. Personally, I believe we are all made in God's image and that we have certain unalienable rights. Rights that our founders felt compelled to try and protect from the new government it was setting up. While our system of government was elegant and effective it was also flawed. No more or less flawed than man himself. The framers knew that this new government was vulnerable to the same weaknesses that haunt us as individuals. Our inability to exercise, or indifference toward, the idea of self-discipline. We have laws to try to contain these preclusions on an individual basis, (though no law can contain an amoral society), but our system of government needed to protect the people from the negative effects of these facts on the governed. So our constitution provides for a remedy to an out of control government. One that is in the hands of the people but that will not be employed by a citizenry that is happy to willingly hand over its freedoms to the government. Yet, our founders worst case scenarios are coming true. We are watching our government grow into Tyranny. A socialist state that no longer offers its citizens said protection of their individual freedoms from an overreaching state. We have, in fact, become the "Soft Tyranny" that Alexis deTocqueville warned us about. On the one hand we talk about diversity and its import in our culture and our society, and on the other hand we are moving at breakneck speed toward a country that not just rewards but demands sameness in the name of the "greater good" or the "general welfare" of its people. The latter of which is a term that is badly mis-understood these days to the advantage of our power-hungry politicians. We are made in God's image as unique people and are most able to pursue the diversity that is intrinsic in our God-likeness as a free people. But we are now, on every hand, encouraged, intimidated and even compelled to conform to a particular ideology in order to earn the status of a member of this society. We are a long way down the road of sameness while carrying the banner's of diversity and individualism with us on our journey. Unfortunately, these banners are only used to identify us so they know which victim line to put us in to receive our voting instructions and protest slogan signs. After all, we wouldn't want to admit that we are, in fact, practicing precisely what we accuse others of. Intolerance. Do we really think that our laws should compel a Muslim auto mechanic to fix a pig farmers truck even if doing so would violate his strongly held religious beliefs. I don't see any way to answer in the affirmative here. He is living in a country that allegedly protects his individualism. His right to pursue, (of course within reasonable bounds), life, liberty and happiness. Why would the government, (or the media,(please note the absence of the word News)), try to force our Muslim friend to fix the pig farmers truck? It; they; shouldn't. And yet these situations are manipulated and remade into hammers to club certain people, or actually, certain ideas or positions, over the head with to mold public opinion into a more suitable companion for our governments march toward Progressivism. At this point in our history I believe we can restore our country to the lofty goals, (at least the pursuit of such), that our framers put in place. We are quickly approaching a point where we will not be able to find our way back, however, because the path we have been on is being bulldozed and re-landscaped so we can't find our way back. Leave healthcare in the hands of the medical community, actuary tables, and the good people of our great country and get the government out of the way so we can fix the mess they have made.

"It covers the surface of society with a network of small, complicated rules, minute and uniform, through which the most original minds and the most energetic characters cannot penetrate to rise above the crowd. The will of man is not shattered but softened, bent, and guided. Men are seldom forced by it to act but they are constantly restrained from acting. Such a power does not destroy but it prevents existence. It does not tyrannize but it compresses, enervates, extinguishes and stupefies a people until every nation is reduced to nothing better than a flock of timid and industrious animals of which the government is the shepherd ".
Alexis de Tocqueville

BY HIS STRIPES

    In the 53rd chapter of Isaiah we read a description of the Suffering Servant. The Messiah. The Christ. It's quite a dramatic depiction of not just the suffering of the Lamb of God but also the accomplishment of Salvation through His sacrifice. It is a passage that most Christians are at least vaguely familiar with and includes the statement that "by His stripes, we are healed" This comment refers to the scourging of Jesus before His crusifixion and points to the fact that Jesus suffering was necessary to bring about the forgiveness of sin. My understanding of this relationship took a leap forward a few years back as I sat at one of several stations during a Maundy Thursday service. This table simply had a Bible and paper and pencils for writing down your thoughts as you considered the whole story of Jesus' crucifixion. Following are my writings from this time.
    "By His stripes we are healed. Those stripes have a very personal origin. My sin. My shortcomings. My intentional turning away. I am not a bystander in this crucifixion. I am actively involved. The beauty of this is that God twisted things around to use the very thing that brought His death to bring me life. No wonder it all confounds the intellectuals so.
-----though your sin be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow.
-----He doesn't say wait till tomorrow, 
           or you should have been here before.
    He just says come.
     He is nothing like me."

Just Thinking

Ramblings:

So, if God is all powerful, how can He stand by and watch all of the horrors mankind is always, somewhere, actively perpetrating on itself? This is a question which has been asked for ever and ever and it is now my turn to take a stab at it.

    I believe the answer lies somewhere in the idea of "freewill". That is to say, He cannot effectively show His love for us, nor we for Him, by His turning us all into robots. While the evidence of our Creator is, in my experience, everywhere to be found, it is still a matter of an intentional act to "believe" in Him. That is to say, if God were to split the sky and make an announcement for all of humankind to see, hear and experience, then our natural tendency would be to believe, of course, and to stand fearful and cowering in His presence. Is this "love"? I would say no. And I believe a relationship of love with His creation is what God most wants. Our decision to follow Him, through His expression of love in the Christ, the messiah, is what He wants. There is sufficient evidence in the sciences to lay a foundation for a very plausible faith. Not a blind, radical, emotional response, but a thoughtful, reasoned response resulting in placing our faith in God's work on earth. While He is holy and just, attributes that we are to strive for but without the realistic expectation of achieving, He still loves us. As we express our love for Him we enter into an eternal relationship which will some day be made perfect through Christ.

    Getting a bit off track here. Let me offer an analogy if I may. Back to the question of how a loving God can "allow" so many evil things to occur. As I said, I tie it to "freewill". If you are in a courtroom where your brother has been found guilty of manslaughter because he ventured out on the road after having a few too many drinks and the family of the deceased comes up to you and says, "why did you let him continue drinking and driving after his first 2 DUI's?" What is your defense? After all, you could have handcuffed him and kept him in your basement. You could have had him forcibly taken to a State run facility to live out his days. You could have kept closer tabs on him and driven him home after he got himself drunk. So many things you could have done. But each of them would have violated his "freewill".  So you had to stand by and watch him destroy his own life and he has now  also taken someone else's life. Are you a murderer? Your efforts to talk some sense into your brother were unsuccessful but you could have taken a more direct, physical approach. But that approach, while potentially saving someone's life, would have infringed on your brothers basic rights as a person. God is constantly calling us to a point of redemption. He has made a way for humankind that would move us to a less violent existence. But He has not yet directly intervened on a worldwide scale, I believe, hoping more of His creation will choose to place their faith in Him void of the feelings of compulsion which would certainly accompany a decision after His second coming or some other worldwide supernatural event.
    So I believe we are left with a world inexerably tied to both tragedy and joy. A world capable of evil but a world that offers a loving creators invitation to grace and forgiveness and eternal life with Him. 

AS I WAS THINKING

    Well, there I was reading a few tweets when I stumbled on to another problem I have with government provided healthcare and viewing it as a right. If it is indeed a right then it opens up the idea of someone, needing medical attention, suing the government, or the doctor, for not providing them with their "right" to healthcare. Another way to look at it is that government has the power, under the auspices of protecting ones rights to force certain people to go into the medical profession against their will so that they would be able to provide the citizenry with their right to healthcare. Otherwise, if individuals were left to pursue their own ambitions, the rights of millions of people could be compromised. Additionally, those who did want to pursue a medical profession would be required to study which ever field of medicine the government felt would best provide for the meeting of the medical rights of the people.
    Again, I reiterate, a right is not a right if it infringes on others rights. On the other hand, if we, as a nation, undertake the task of seeing that all who want healthcare are given every opportunity to purchase it, with some assistance if needed, then things fall in place without the heavy hand of government removing even more of our freedoms. It's not hard for me to show where half of my income is going to taxes today. With federal and state income taxes being just the most obvious. We pay a ton of property taxes, registration fees, in addition to inflated prices for goods due to tariffs and subsidies to certain business interests. Also, over 40 cents of the price of every gallon of gas goes to taxes. We have already lost the idea of a man owning the fruits of the sweat of his brow and the labor of his hands since over half of such fruit is forcefully picked by the government. With government run healthcare the government would take the final necessary step to accomplish it's socialistic goals. After that power play by the government it would only be a matter of time before we are a truly socialist country.
    I respect your desire to accomplish this if you wish but it would be best to start with a country that does not purport to protect our individual God given rights. In other words, please take your ideas somewhere else and let us rebuild a truly free society where free enterprise and free people can transform the whole world and make it a better place. You know, like happened before our governmental system was corrupted by men and women whose lust for power eroded the protections intended for the individuals.
    I'm not particularly fond of having Mr. Trump as president, but he may, in fact, be the kind of dramatic change that can start the pendulum swinging back in the direction of freedom. Just maybe.

IDEA ALERT (a solution to our healthcare debate)

    Finally, I think I have an answer to what's been ailing us. See what you think of this. People who want health insurance but who don't want to, ( or can't ), pay for it on their own and who are forced to take money from evil rich top one percenters, (which I presume presents a moral delemna for them), are about to be freed. Here's how it would work. Those who can buy actuary table based health insurance at face value will live with the restrictions of their plans. That is to say, they will buy insurance based on the risk factor associated with their lifestyle and dietary choices. On the other hand, those who's health insurance is being purchased or subsidized for them will be subject to lifestyle and dietary behavior guidelines which will reduce the risk to their health so as to limit the cost to those who are buying health insurance on their behalf.
    Those who are the recipients of free or reduced health insurance costs will be asked to reduce costs for those buying their healthcare. Seems like the fair thing to do. After a couple of generations the lower income segment of our society will emerge healthier and with higher life expectancies then the rich who are not conforming to such stringent health decisions. So eventually the rich will die off and we will be left with the poorer folks who by default are also more noble and trustworthy than the one percenters who are so very stingy with their wealth.
    Seems like this should be a win win to me. The poor can shoulder the sugar tax burden and will be directed to follow whatever "health" concerns are identified by the medical community, like cutting back on coffee for a while then resuming normal consumption and cutting cholesterol out of their diets for 20 or 30 years while we figure out it isn't really the consumption of it that raises our body's cholesterol, or significantly reducing salt intake for half a lifetime until we can confirm that it isn't as harmful as we once thought. The rich can be the "tasters" for the poor. I just don't see a down side. And we can hold on to a semblance of individual freedoms while doing this.
    Additionally, it's time to separate insurance from employment and introduce competition back into our insurance choices. HSA's would be a great start. Employers could contribute to the HSA as a benefit but the insurance part of it would be exclusive of the employment part. Then workers wouldn't feel so trapped,(something employers don't want),and could "shop" around for better pay without risking the loss of coverage.
    Just something to think about. By the way, check out the "Direct Care" and "Concierge" models that are beginning to spring up all across the country. I'm smelling a solution in the offing.

IS HEALTH INSURANCE A RIGHT (or a left)?

It seems dangerous to me to refer to the providing of heath insurance to every man, woman, and child, as a right. I understand that the word has a bit of latitude when it comes to it's definition but I would argue calling it a right establishes it as a basic human right in most peoples minds. And this is what I reject. The right to life, as represented in the Declaration of Independence, and protected in the Constitution, is the basic right of mankind, to live with the expectation that others will not take his life from him. This basic right results in laws against murder. Also, within the understanding of this right is the expectation that others will not impede his path toward his pursuits. Not that they will participate in his endeavors, (thought they may choose to do so), but that they will not intentionally block his activities to keep him from his pursuits. This right is contained within man's nature, placed there by his Creator. A man's rights are not dependent on others participation but rather on their refraining from behaviors which limit or remove this right.
If health insurance is a right then it is of a dissimilar nature than the right to life. In order to provide someone with insurance that has chosen not to purchase it (or is unable to purchase it) for themselves, it is imperative that others basic rights be subjegated to the ones for whom the right of insurance is being provided. This strikes me as an illogical and unethical position to take. Protecting my basic right to life is substantially different than a systematic infringement on others rights to provide me with something that has been deemed a right by public discourse. My right to life does not, and should not, imply a particular standard of living. A standard of living is the by-product of many things including my personal choices and should not default to a specific level.
Before you start in with the declaration of my being the personification of evil please understand that I am willing to have a discussion about wheather a country as wealthy as the free enterprise system has made us should provide some basic health insurance for our citizens. But I am not willing to mis-use the word "right" in the discussion. There are plenty of words in our language that have been absolutely obliterated by mainly politicians, we don't need to add more to the pile.