Ryan's Second Budget Swing - Strike Two

Mr. Ryan is trying something that is generaly a compulsive response given his conservative economic views. There is much to be admired by a politician who actually tries to formulate a policy, like his budget proposal, consistent with his beliefs. But the admiration must be diluted since he is creating his budget based on beliefs of how he wants things to work, rather than based on knowledge or informed principles that would directly address the issue and problems that the country is facing. For example, his proposal to cut spending on Medicare is a common simple-minded solution to a long-standing problem that less inspired politicians have been equally able to propose in the past.

But why go with such a simple solution: cut funding so that you will spend less? Isn't this the type of solution that we would expect from those who understand rules like - do the opposite and the opposite will happen. Where is the inspired, innovative ideal(s) that lead to a solution that lessens the costs, improves the benefits, and demonstrates that America's problems can be solved by applying intelligence, insight and informed decision making to such issues.

Now Ryan appears to be intent upon helping America; so if he can't see beyond the trival any more than all the other political hacks, Republican or Democrat, Ryan should seek counsel from people who can explain how to solve the Medicare problem thorugh a forward-looking, reasoned approach. It may be a problem that has been around for a long time, and Congresses past and present may have consistently failed to come even marginally close to seeing an easy solution, but that they failed in no way indicates that it is hard to solve or that there is no solution. It shows only that our politicians are particularly bad at comprehending the problem or the solution.

Give it another try, it is not a difficult problem to solve; and best of all you won't have to cut the program to ill-effect, it will reduce it's own budget by delivering more for less. That should be a sufficient hint, I think.

You Could Be A Religious, A Political, or A Women’s Health Leader; or You Could Be Smart

The Senate voted today on an amendment to the transportation funding bill to allow employers with a religious or moral objection to a health care procedure the right to be exempted from having to provide that coverage (that is, pay for a health care program providing that benefit). Certainly a transportation funding bill is the appropriate place for such a legislative initiative, but obviously health care is provided via a form of transportation. But that his not the actual problem in which the current political, religious, social and health care debate is mired. The real problem is that the individuals who have attained their respective (or jointly held) positions of authority as religious leaders, elected political office holders, or experts on health care or social values are all obviously unqualified for those positions.

In the case of the religious advocates who are ranting about the threat to their religious freedoms, they appear to be stuck on their view that the rights and values of anyone who works for them fall under their moral judgment. Christian leaders are very clear on their objection to particular health care practices, and that they should not be required to pay for something they are absolutely against. But they are extending their right to choose their own health care needs from being required to provide their employees with the exact same right. Not one religious person is required  to pay for any procedure or treatment that they do not specifically want of their own accord. So where is the infringement on their rights? Besides their Christian teachings  instruct them to not place their judgment on another’s right of conscience.

Political leaders are on one side or the other of this debate, but their failing is not purely along a religious, moral or societal line. After who considers politicians as religious, moral or possessing a societal value? But none the less, they advocate for one constituency or another who are interested in imposing their views upon everyone else. Not one politician on either side of this issue has pointed out the failure of their peers to see a legislative solution to the debate that would satisfy both the religious freedom and the individual rights problems that the less informed have latched onto as a point of contention. It is quite easy to protect religious freedoms, insure individual rights to health care, and keep the government from creating another divisive policy and increase the efforts of the political parties from doing more damage to American values.

The health care experts, providers and insurance industry has also failed to show the religious communities or the political groups the errors of their ways. They have either joined one side of the debate or the other, or have stayed out of the debate all together. This failing must be because they haven’t been able to figure out that they can offer a solution to the issue that religious groups should already have recognized, that politicians should have proposed and legislated , or that any semi-intelligent individual could figure out.

The problem with this issue is that religious, political and health care experts have found an effective way to keep any smart people from showing them a simple solutions.

I Can’t See! I Can’t See! - Your Eyes Are Closed.

OK, the Republicans screwed up, again! But isn't the point that should be really important on this issue be that not one Republican has been able to put forth a solution that resolves this issue to the satisfaction of both sides. Nor by the way has one Democrat put forth a solution that will resolve the issue and not deny someone's freedoms are trampled upon. So the political leaders of our nation and our political parties with all their political advisors and lobbyists are so befuddled by this issue that they haven't been able to think the three minutes it takes to make the issue and the debate go away.

 And we can't blame that it's an election year for this abysmal failure of intellect or disgusting display of ineptitude. Our elected leaders are the bumbling, self-centered, pandering incompetents that are required to create this asinine situation.

 The experts on religious liberty were of no use in this endeavor either. No guidance from above evidently on how to settle this issue so that their religious freedoms are not compromised and the rights of those who wish to live their lives according to own pursuit of happiness. It's not that there isn't a solution to this conundrum, because there is. Are these experts so knowledgeable that they can't see past their own noses?

 Surely the advocacy groups, on either side, have smart people that can step up and present the solution.

 Hello! I am waiting. Is any one there?

 And that my fellow American's is our problem. We don't demand that our officials, their friends, their advisors, or anyone step up and address the problem, and present a reasonable, thoughtful and insightful solution. In this case, you don't get what you pay for. You get what lets our politicians distract and divide the attention of the media and public. You get what you deserve.

 If you don't want this stupidity any more, then you have to actually do something about it.

 If you don't know the answer to the problem, you might consider starting by asking if someone has a proposal that both sides can accept (a solution this the public recognizes as fair and balanced. That the politicos will have to accept because they can't reasonably or rationally oppose it).

When Christians and WWJD Conflict

Catholic Bishops have decreed that they do not accept the Obama Administration’s accommodation on the employee health care issue. The bishops have “serious moral concerns”. One casually wonders if moral concerns should ever be anything except serious especially for bishops, but this is only a passing thought. Of more substantial concern is whether the bishops and other Christian groups are following a religious or faith-based path, or a political power-based path. If through some extraordinary confluence of events and personalities the bishops and others have for the first time in the entire history of their religion floundered into an error in judgment or morality, we should all be charitable and forgiving since they have never before been on the wrong side of a moral, ethical or Christian issue.

The bishops’ moral issue is fundamentally that they should not be compelled to pay for an action that they sincerely believe is contrary to their beliefs and violates their principles. And if they were being forced to personally act against their own conscience then I would wholeheartedly support their position both as a Christian, as an American, and as a thinking human being. But here is where the issue divides not just those who see a political issue that they hope to leverage to advance their careers, position and power, but it is an issue that separates Christians from Christians. No bishop or Christian is being asked to engage in any action that is a violation of their faith. They are in fact being asked to adhere to and follow the one of the core principles of their faith(s), do good unto others.

Because this is an issue that quickly evokes emotional responses and programmatic responses, it does not lend itself to efforts to critically contemplate and analyze either the facts or the moral issue that should be the question and not the one that is grabs everyone’s attention but is as deceptive as the devil’s promise.

I am sure that many of the people on both sides of this issue will recognize the ‘WWJD’ acronym (or some equivalent variant applicable to other religious groups). In the context of this issue the WWJD question offers an interesting perspective that I am sure will not result in a singular and definitive answer acceptable to all combatants in the debate. But that fact is more telling and more relevant to the issue than the issue itself. Think of it. Members of the same faith group, even Catholics, do not see the issue or the answer in the same way. They do not reach the same answer to the WWJD question, even though they are all working from the same playbook. So is the admonition that Mark provides one of the teachings that we are not attending to, that a house divided cannot stand. Perhaps one of the reasons this issue is so divisive is that it pits one individual right against the individual right of another. Of course it should be a necessary condition that both rights are actually in contention. When this condition is not met, it seems irresponsible and immoral to threaten the rights of one group when another’s are not under attack.

WWJD then? I believe he would instruct the faithful to attend to their rights, but to honor and recognize the legitimacy of the rights of others. If you are to be the first to cast a stone, be without sin. The reaction of hatred and anger is not in that message. The judgment that you should feel anointed to determine the righteousness of another’s choices is not your to perform.

If the Catholic Church or any denomination doesn’t wish to offer health care benefits then don’t, if you believe they are not already a moral obligation. But if you think the church or any member of the church has the right to decide what another’s health care needs are, no that is not a moral obligation. In fact, it is a contradiction of our moral teachings, value and beliefs. WWJD? He would tell the church to treat every member and every employee with the respect, dignity, and compassion that he has shown us is the way. If you don’t want to serve the needs of your employees then offer them nothing. If you want to do what is right either offer them health benefits uncontaminated with a presumptive judgment of what is their personal and individual right. If you can’t provide that plan directly, then provide employees with appropriate compensation so they can rightfully and morally search out what their heart tells them is proper and that their society guarantees them is theirs and theirs alone, to live their lives with freedom, liberties and faith unabridged by the judgment of others.

Political Physics: Force = Madness X Absurdity

The religious hard-liners have foisted another misguided political decision into America’s national health care policy. Their right to free-speech allows them to present their opinion, their right to petition the government is in full force unabated and unthreatened by any attempted action of the government, and their right to exercise their religious beliefs are not only unchallenged but as fully protected as ever. So in this religiously dangerous political environment, a large portion of Christian religious groups and organizations are up in arms about the governments assault on their beliefs. Their claim: that the Obama administration is trying to force them to go against their beliefs.

At the center of this perceived attack on personal conscience is the forced obligation to provide employees with access to birth-control under their health care insurance. But as a Christian I am disturbed by the same level of disregard that these faith-based groups and organizations are remonstrating about regarding their responsibility to treating their fellow men and women with respect, compassion and charity. I am troubled that in defense of their freedoms, which aren’t being abridged or threatened that they are causally tossing aside the rights and freedoms of others. This is not only an unchristian act, but also a debasement of our American freedoms, principles and values.

If I understand their line of argument, they contend that they are being forced to pay for health care and medical procedures that they are opposed to on the basis of their religious beliefs. This does sound like a totally improper and immoral invasion upon their faith. But claiming it; doesn’t make it true, or valid, or appropriately judged. The physics of their position depends upon the axioms that that claims are dependent upon.

Are they being forced to pay for a health care benefit that they do not accept as a morally correct act? Are they being forced to violate their right of conscience in any action? Does their religious belief require or direct them to oppose and resist the government imposed obligation regarding health care? If the axioms of their position are neither self-evident nor necessarily consistent with their beliefs then the derivative conclusion of their faith-based actions are invalidated.

The first axiom of being forced to pay for benefits they see as immoral. The religious groups are not being asked to pay for particular procedures. They are paying for health care benefits for their employees. Certainly it is axiomatically true that health care as a righteous act by an employer and socially expected by Americans in general. There is nothing immoral about providing for others’ health care, an imposed obligation to do so doesn’t violate Christian principles which should never require the compulsion to begin with. Further, the faith-based entities’ efforts to extend their judgment of their right of individual conscience to be applied to the individual health care needs of another person and onto that other person’s own individual right of conscience is wholly without merit and without consistency of freedom of religion precepts. In America, your religious beliefs provide a range of authority and responsibility for yourself, and go no further than the choices you are responsible for making; another’s health care needs and decisions are not inside that sphere.

The contention that they are forced to act against their beliefs is axiomatically invalidated in that they are not required to engage in any action that their faith prohibits them from personally doing. They don’t have to use any birth-control methodology that they don’t approve of. No one cares if they do or if they do not use or engage in such activities. They are also not forced to pay for specific procedures of a health care insurance program unless they are self-insured in this area. And in that case if they object to providing an option directly because of their objection then they only need to provide an appropriate form of compensation in lieu of the coverage that their employee has a legal right to obtain.

For some religious groups they contend that they are forced to oppose the government’s requirement that they provide health care coverage that acknowledges the rights of the covered to their own beliefs and conscience. They don’t phrase it that way of course, but they position their resistance in terms of their faith-based moral imperative. They have a legal right to voice their objection but then no more or less so than those who support the position that even religious-based organizations are responsible to provide health care programs that provide the beneficiaries with legally sanctioned treatments. I also admit that their views may be consistent with their understanding of the bible or other teachings of their faith; but I find the bible provides equally valid teachings that would instruct the faithful to follow their own faith but to not judge the faith of others, and to respect the rules of the society that protects their right to practice their faith.

So the physics of Christian groups does not constitute a valid equation of faith. It doesn’t provide a moral answer to the problem at hand. The force they are complaining about is one of their own creation. They are choosing to see their beliefs as preeminent to others, to society and to the laws that have protected the freedom of religion successfully for generations. The moral teachings and examples being set by these religious groups are not consistent with the a faith of charity toward others, a faith of loving thy fellow man/woman, or a faith of doing unto others as you would have them do unto you.

Politics, Religion and Health Care: Let’s Count The Intelligent People

The contraceptive coverage for health insurance mandate the Health and Human Services department of the Obama Administration, has raised the hackles of numerous groups. Not surprisingly the politicians and many religious groups have seized upon this decision to sound the alarm about this being a direct and deliberate attach on religion and religious groups in America. Evoking the “attacking religion” card makes for good political theater, provides a sure-fire fund raising issue, and manages to avoid the real issue itself. It’s not often that politicians and their parties can engage with a topic that is so exemplary of a complete and absolute misunderstanding of our Constitutional freedoms.

The requirement for faith-based organizations and businesses to provide a health insurance plan that includes coverage of contraceptives and birth-control is a three or more party issue, and not a government versus religion two-party issue. The mischaracterization of this issue as between the government and religion ignores the more salient and precise legal, ethical and democratic principles that our Constitution would direct us to attend to. So let us count the people so are turning their blind mind’s eye to the political equivalent of entertainment television.

Politicians, the keepers of America’s moral compass, are rapidly seeking their way to the low points usually sought out by their fluid ethical principles. Just like rain on a road, the politicians are running to the left or right gutter carrying with them the pollution and waste littering society. The politicians are either insisting that requiring a religious-sponsored or founded business or organization to provide health insurance coverage that includes contraceptive treatment is a violation of a persons’ right to freely practice their religion, or that the government must protect women’s rights to choose. None of the politicians have seen the Constitutional light, the flame of freedom embodied in our highest laws. So our politicians get a thumbs down. They fail again. The politicians demonstrate yet again they don’t have the wisdom to fathom the basic intentions of the Founding Fathers to protect our individual freedoms.

Religions, the pillars of our society, are letting us all down by actively inserting the primacy of their judgment on acceptable public policy and our legal principles. The proud pharisees of the religious communities are presenting their views and beliefs as above the highest laws of the land, including the one that protects their right to hold and practice their particular faith. Their right to freely exercise their religious beliefs apparently includes their right to dictate what they allow another person’s freedoms and right to entail. If they follow their faith in serving the social good, they also get to restrict what anyone working with them is permitted to think, do or believe. Nope, religious groups are allowed to limit what their members are to believe and even do; but they cannot impose that judgment onto the rights of another, particularly outside the practice of their religion. Your freedom does not diminish mine, and for many of the Christian faiths I know that is a tenet of their faith.

Religious organizations beyond the direct practice of their faith such as charities, hospitals, schools and such are allowed to offer services to the public and demonstrate the values and morality of their beliefs through their good works. However, they cannot claim a level of authority over or jurisdiction over the rights or actions of their employees outside the work environment. Health insurance and coverage for the employees of such organizations is a benefit of the individual, of the person who that insurance protects and provides for. It is not the domain or realm of the religious organization or business that provides it to their employees. Since it doesn’t belong to them, and they are not responsible for health care treatments that the individual determines is in their own best interest; the faith-based organizations or businesses do not have the right to express their religion at the expense of an independent, free and private individual.

The media is quickly dispensed with. They only contribute to the noise, the misunderstanding, and the misdirection. If they can’t provide a sound analysis of the issue then we must dismiss their efforts to stoke the fires just to see the moths get attracted to the flames.

The answer is to address the issue. Does the government have the right to require that employees have a right of access to contraceptive coverage under their employer provided health care, it they desire it? Do not jump to the ‘freedom of religious expression’ question. Should an individual have the right to choose health care coverage that conforms to their views? If you think they do not, then be careful of going down the religious freedom argument road. The answer has to relate to the employee’s right, there is no religious question, issue or conflict here. If you think employees have no right to choose the nature of their coverage then religious freedom doesn’t come into play. So take the argument away and stop bothering people, focus on your real point. Employees don’t have these rights period.

If you think employees have the right to choose their coverage, but that it cannot abridge the rights of other persons’ religious beliefs then the problem is not with the law or the government’s rule. If your religious organization or business does not want to provide contraceptive coverage then don’t. You don’t have to pay for this type of coverage. All you need to do is give the employee a voucher to purchase a health care insurance coverage that they want on the open market. This approach does not require the religious entity from funding any activity of which they do not approve.

Keep the government out of your faith, and keep your faith out of someone else’s as the Constitution and the Bible teach us.

Conscience and Health Care the Conundrum of Rights

Health and Human Services (HHS) has sparked another health care crisis on the political front this week. HHS has enraged religious organizations by mandating that many faith-based charities, organizations and businesses provide health care plans that include birth control coverage. Religious groups have responded with a condemnation of the policy as an overt intrusion into and violation of their First Amendment right to free exercise of their religious beliefs. The Catholic Church is one example of the religious community coming out in protest of the government forcing them to compromise their faith.

But wait! Why does the HHS mandate create this untenable choice for these groups in terms of their faith? The US Conference of Catholic Bishops has stated that the HHS ruling interferes with members’ rights of conscience. The bishops and other Catholic leaders contend that the government is forcing people of faith to choose between following their beliefs and following the law. Having heard the call to respond to the Administrations action in church this morning, I find a dissonance between the admonitions from the Church on this issue and the teachings of faith I have received from it.

The Church is insisting that providing medical coverage that belongs to the individual covered, a compassionate and charitable gift provided in accordance with basic principles of the Church, is a violation of the individual’s right of conscience. But the Church is imparting its standard on the individual, its conclusion of that individual’s conscience, and its judgment of what that individual’s free exercise of religion is permitted to be. They certainly have the right to try and impose their moral authority on others, but they don’t have the right to or means of defining anyone else moral values, principles or personal conscience. This after all that was the first and primary gift from God that was given to you, your own soul with its own responsibility for moral decisions.

So I ask you, how is the Church forced to make a decision against its conscience? Are the bishops being asked to decide to choose whether to use birth control methods? Are the priests being asked to purchase condoms for others? Is Catholic Charities being required to determine if a woman needs an abortion? What is the Church being asked to do here that violates their moral choice? I don’t see how they are being asked to choose to make any other moral decision here than to provide people who work for them, Catholic or not, any more than any American would expect their employer to provide to a worker. Are their employees not worthy of health care; to choose the medical care of their conscience; to following the teaching of their faith; to promote the values and morals that they see as required to meet their views on life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?

The Church doesn’t have to offer a medical coverage, self insured coverage, if they feel it compromises their conscience. They can provide employees with the option to choose coverage they provide or pay them a fair amount to purchase insurance coverage that suits the individual’s own conscience.

I wonder why the Church has only found the logic and reasoning that imposes a moral judgment on others that is not required by their faith. The Bible provides ample teachings on such issues that would be at odds with the Church’s current stance. American Catholics should be asking their own conscience what are they required to do in following their personal consciences. Is it really a Catholic moral value to impose our moral judgment on another? Is it really Christian to restrict charitable acts to those who only adhere to your views or your faith?

There are many solutions to this discord. The Bible teaches us this. I don’t believe Jesus would cast this stone.