I Am Voting In Favor Of MAPS 3

Here in Oklahoma City we have this thing called MAPS. The acronym is for Metropolitan Area Projects.

We voted on the original MAPS in 1993 about the time I was in the process of moving away from the Oklahoma City area. A few of the original projects included what is now called the Oklahoma River, a canal through the Bricktown area, a baseball stadium, an arena, and a few other things.

1993 was still a tough year for a lot of us in the Oklahoma City area. I thought the entire MAPS proposal was inspired by something near lunacy if not worse. All together the projects were estimated to cost some $300 Million plus. It was to be funded by a temporary one cent sales tax.

Besides the economic issue of removing that much money from the local economy and spending money on absurdly crazy projects there was the very widespread distrust of our local government.

But that first MAPS passed much to my surprise. But I was more surprised when I returned to Oklahoma City in November 1998 and observed the changes wrought by MAPS. It wasn't only the physical construction projects that had changed the place either.

There was a change in attitude. People were more upbeat and there was a civic pride that had not been apparent to me before I left.

Next there was a program called MAPS For Kids that was designed a little like MAPS but was for metropolitan area schools.

Then there was a kind of mini-MAPS just a year or so ago to upgrade the downtown arena for a basketball team.

There is not a chance that I personally would have supported any of the projects undertaken by any of these measures.

In just a short time we'll vote on MAPS 3.

I would not support any of the projects proposed in MAPS 3 either. I am pretty certain I will never use any of the finished projects nor am I likely to personally benefit in any way.

And I admit that when I first heard about MAPS 3 I was skeptical and pretty negative.

But I've thought more about it and I've decided I want to continue what the original MAPS began.

The big MAPS 3 projects include a large downtown park, a downtown streetcar system, and a new convention center. Then there are several smaller projects. The total cost is estimated at $777 Million to be paid for by a one cent sales tax.

I think all those individual projects are crazy. I wouldn't spend a nickel for them. I'm pretty sure there is no way to prove any kind of economic return on any of them either with the possible exception of the convention center. And I suspect it is more likely negative.

But I'm going to vote yes to extend the sales tax.

I'm going to trust the City government to use the money wisely and in the same spirit as MAPS 1.

There's a lot of opposition to this new MAPS especially by the local fire fighters and police and a pretty vocal group of other assorted folks.

So I have no idea how this is going to turn out.

But I've made my decision.

Nineteenth Ammendment 89th Anniversary

Today is the 89th anniversary of the ratification of the 19th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America.

The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.

I wrote more about it not long ago. But I noticed today that it was the anniversary and thought it was worth a reminder.

Still amazes me how short a time it has been that women could not vote.

Health Care Debate

I watched Meet The Press yesterday.

Really I wish I had not. Usually I don't but I made an exception yesterday because I am interested in health care.

On the Obama Health Care side were Rachel Maddow, Tom Daschle, Bill Ritter, and Charlie Rangel. I suppose really I should include the show's host, David Gregory, because his position seems pretty clear to me.

Opposition included Tom Coburn and Dick Armey.

There was a fellow from the Chamber of Commerce but I missed what side he was on if he actually said.

I agreed with Senator Coburn which shouldn't surprise anyone really

.Just as an aside I actually received a telephone call from Senator Coburn's office regarding Alzheimer's and my own caregiver role during the time I was caregiving. He was the only senator that took any interest at all in any of the letters and emails I wrote and sent during that time. Representative Tom Cole also contacted me and I believe he was the only representative.

The only thing that I know for sure is that there are two sides and they seem to me to be irreconcilable.

The Democratic position as nearly as I can tell is that "they" (meaning the Democrats in power) are in favor of improving health care and that anyone opposing is in favor of either the status quo, depriving more people of health care, and/or making health care actually worse than it is.

In terms of policy the Democrats seem to favor a government controlled health care system. They would accomplish that goal with either a government system alongside the private, or a single payer system. Eventually they would like to move to total control of all medical facilities and personnel. This they say offers the greatest opportunity for cost savings by eliminating administrative bureaucracy.

The Democrats see two very evil villains: insurance companies and anyone else who oppose them. And they are not shy about excoriating their opponents.

The Republicans are adamantly opposed both philosophically and practically. However, the Republicans did agree that health care could and should be improved. They also see an evil villain, namely the Democrats.

Actually Rachel Maddow seemed particularly angry with Dick Armey. Daschle was more angry with Coburn. Rangel was just angry at everyone.

I am pretty sure if Rachel Maddow was in charge of health care that Dick Armey would be on his way to a "government clinic" to be prepared for "going home" (using language from Soylent Green).

The Democrats have the votes to pretty much do anything they want regardless of the Republican opposition. So it seems to me that the public debate and town hall meetings and so on are public relation efforts.

That said the Democrats are not tone deaf to public sentiment either and public sentiment so far is not favorable toward too much government.

Still my guess is that some kind of reform bill will make it into law. Everyone will claim victory and we'll all go on our merry way.

End of Life

There has been a lot of discussion lately about the cost of care during the end of life period.

I wonder when you start counting the end of life period especially if you don't know when the end occurs?

In the recent house bill there was a provision, since removed, that reimbursed doctors who provided end of life counseling.

Some senator or congressman I read said that having counseling like that at the end of life was too late and it needed to happen 20 years earlier. Thought that was interesting.

I noticed an article in the Wall Street Journal that reported some rather old statistics. The article referenced a 2001 study. That's 8 years ago and I suspect things might be different now but I didn't really find more recent data (which is not to say it doesn't exist).

However, I paid more attention to the graph than the statistics after I noticed it.

But back to the stats: The 2001 study reported that each year about 5% of Medicare beneficiaries die and that spending in the last year of life accounted for 27.4% of total Medicare spending. So that last year of life is definitely expensive.

I think that was true in my parents' case but only if I include the cost of caregivers I hired and paid for myself. I never did know really what hospice cost so I can't comment on it.

Just last Friday though an attorney friend told me that he really thought we all needed end of life counseling in order to cut medical costs because that's where the most money is spent. It is kind of like robbing banks I guess.

That same idea definitely is repeated in the WSJ article.

There's even mention of a report by The Urban Institute that concluded about $10 billion per year could be saved with "better managed end-of-life care." How this would be done:

"The savings would result from training aimed at discouraging doctors from providing care simply because they would get paid for it, and from having teams at hospitals help terminally ill patients manage their pain once they chose to stop treatment, among other things."

Well there is talk about the cost of the health care plan being about $1.5 trillion over 10 years or some $150 billion per year. So $10 billion per year savings would be about 7%. Really doesn't seem like that much when you think about it that way -- at least to me.

About then I noticed the graph.

My next thought was a brief memory flash of that 1973 movie, "Soylent Green." It is set in the year 2022 in New York City where 40 million people live. There are government assisted suicide ("going home") centers ("clinics"). Soylent is a giant company in cahoots with the government that makes processed food because real food is long gone.

The newest Soylent product is a wafer called Soylent Green.

Turns out that it is made from humans who have "gone home."

I wonder if the "green" comes from the idea of recycling life?

You do have to admit that according to that Kaiser graph we could save a lot of money if all of us 65 and older just went "on home." Or maybe we should make it 3 score and 10.

We could save even more if we moved the age down to say 60. Then you wouldn't even have to pay social security at all. That would solve the social security problem, go a long ways to fixing the medicare problem, eliminate a lot of trouble with old age diseases including Alzheimer's and Parkinson's, and probably help the unemployment situation.

It is interesting to me that the cheapest years are 5 to 17. But really it is pretty much the same until age 45. Save a lot if you cut off at 45.

I started thinking about the cost for a family of 4 let's say: Father and mother in their 30's and 2 children say 5 to 17. It works out to about $7,500 per year. If I applied it to my family (me and my wife) then it works out to just about $10,000 per year. That's interesting because that's quite a bit less than my health insurance costs my business. My parents did not spend anywhere near $8,776 per year until they were about 85.

Then I began thinking about how much is an extra hour of life worth? Or an extra day? Or an extra week? Or an extra month? Or an extra year?

Depends I guess on whether it is you or someone else and whether or not there's pain or unawareness or depression or all sorts of other parameters.

It's quite a bit easier I suspect if it is someone else and someone you dislike to boot. If you like them then its probably harder.

What do you tell someone in end of life counseling? "Wow, you're about to die and really there's no sense in prolonging your life. Why don't you just go ahead and check on out now and save us all quite a bit of trouble and don't be so damn selfish."

Probably not that crude. Would be smoother -- more like Soylent Green I imagine or some of the dialogue in 1984. "Wouldn't you like to just lie down here and enjoy the pretty pictures of Earth they way it used to be and have a nice, long, deep sleep?"

Of course there's no problem really if someone has an advance directive that specifies no heroic measures be taken to prolong life. No problem because that's the consensus of the majority.

But what about the person that goes against the majority and either has no directive or actually has the gall to specify his or her desire for longer life? What then?

Does not society have the right, indeed, the obligation, to force that person to accede to the best interest of society?

Probably we would have some kind of boards established like the old draft boards I remember from the Vietnam War era. Everyone will get a card with a designation. Some people we need to keep around longer.

I'm going back to reading 1984 now.

Government Health Care

Here you go from our local newspaper:

Social Security deal brings relief to Durant woman
Class-action lawsuit fought denial of benefits
BY MICHAEL KIMBALL
Published: August 13, 2009

I'm just going to retell the story though rather than print the whole thing but feel free to click the link.

Seems as though Ms. Roberta Hobbs, 75, Durant, Oklahoma had an outstanding warrant from California stemming from a 2001 car accident prior to her relocation. In 2006 our government passed a law to deny social security benefits to fugitive criminals.

The SSA in their enlightened ignorance used that law as reason to suspend Ms. Hobbs' benefits along with another 200,000 benefit recipients.

Now Ms. Hobbs at the time had an electric wheel chair, a terminal lung condition that keeps her on oxygen 24/7, and $46 per month from Oklahoma Old Age Assistance.

After she lost her social security benefits she exhausted her savings, lived with no heat in her home which had been vandalized, and with no wheelchair which someone stole.

She survived thanks to a local church, her daughter, and a few other non-governmental organizations.

She asked every government agency she could find for help but was turned down by all.

That no help was forthcoming from the government does not exactly surprise anyone who has ever had to deal with the government.

Eventually though the National Senior Citizens Law Center represented Ms. Hobbs and 5 others in a class action suit against the SSA in 2008. At this point it appears that Ms. Hobbs and her fellow plaintiffs have won that case on behalf of some 200,000 people of whom 80,000 will get their benefits returned.

The other plaintiffs: a woman whose warrant was intended for someone else; a mentally disabled man whose warrant was issued when he was 12 and ran away from his home; a stolen vehicle charge that was dismissed but not recorded properly; someone who bounced a check to a grocery store in Texas; and, another California traffic accident.

The price to the SSA is $500,000,000 plus.

Why do we want to turn more of our health system over to the same government?

And by the way there are end of life provisions in the health care bills now being discussed.

Here's a link to the text of HR 3200. The section dealing with end of life consultation is Section 1233.

No, those provisions don't explicitly state that sick people should be killed in the interest of saving money. Likewise I am certain no one that voted for the provision to deny benefits to fugitives intended to nearly kill Ms. Hobbs. But that's what happened.

In my own experience as just one example there is the case where my mother was in the hospital with a broken leg. At 3 days I was told she was due to be discharged but they had managed to secure us 3 more days. After that we had to leave. Her doctors did not want to discharge her. Her nurses didn't either. Nor did the hospital officials. It was Medicare rules that forced us out. Just a few days later my mother died. Would she have lived longer if she had been given more time? I suspect so.

So there was no explicit conspiracy on the part of the government to kill my mother. But there was certainly a lack of regard for her personal condition in light of their sacred rules.

I do not consider myself an alarmist or an extremist but I can certainly appreciate the concern that people have about this issue.

And that is from someone who had to try and talk to my own father about end of life directives after he was diagnosed with Alzheimers.

Nineteenth Ammendment

The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.

Jan 10, 1918 - Passed narrowly by The House of Representatives
October 1918 - Failed Senate by 3 votes
May 21, 1919 - Passed House of Representatives
Jun 4, 1919 - Passed Senate
Aug 26, 1920 - Ratified by Tennessee, the 36th state to do so

Feb 28, 1920 - My state, Oklahoma, ratified. (I wondered so I Binged it.)(

Mar 22, 1984 - Ratified by Mississippi - the last state to do so.

The reason for my post is that during our granddaughters' visit we watched the 2004 movie, "Iron Jawed Angels."

Before watching the movie they just assumed that women must have been able to vote a long time ago where long time means way back several hundred years in American history. They were shocked that it only happened in 1920.

When we met their father to hand them off we mentioned the movie. He thought it was before the Civil War when women could vote. He was also surprised it was just in 1920.

It was important to my wife that her granddaughters see that movie.

I understand why and I think it is important for everyone to be educated about just how recently women were unable to vote and just how badly many were treated in that struggle.

Lucia Whelan -- 911 Call

A few days ago I posted Black vs White, Police vs Citizen about an incident involving Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates, Jr. and Cambridge, MA police officer, James Crowley.

I mentioned the name of the person whose call to 911 initiated the incident. And I also repeated what I had read about Whelan in news media stories.

Turns out that what I posted was wrong because the news media stories were wrong.

Now that's not really a shocking revelation to me because in every case about which I have personal knowledge and there is a media story there are factual inaccuracies in the latter. Several times I've been interviewed myself and then read the reporter's account of what I supposedly said only to be absolutely amazed at the inaccuracy.

Since my post though the original 911 call recording and transcript has been made public and Ms. Whelan has actually made public appearance(s).

It is obvious now in hindsight that Ms. Whelan did absolutely nothing wrong and should never have been so maligned as she was by all sorts of opiners.

That includes me even though I didn't say anything bad about her. I did repeat erroneous information and I wanted to correct that.

So apologies to Ms. Whelan.

Black vs White, Police vs Citizen

This is the mug shot of Henry Louis Gates when he was arrested the other day (July 16, 2009) for disorderly conduct. The charges were later dropped but apparently the mug shot was taken before that.

As celebrity mug shots go this one isn't so bad really. Gates doesn't look bad at all. In fact I think he looks pretty good for a 58 year old guy. He looks reasonable and mild mannered and even kind of scholarly which for a Harvard "scholar" seems to me to be a good thing.

I think about what I'd look like in a mug shot sometimes when I leave the house without my shower and have my cap on my head to keep my notorious (in my family) mad scientist hair in place. Because I know they make you take your cap off. Not that I would be doing anything deliberately to get arrested mind you. But sometimes I think weird stuff like that.

Now this picture (and no I do not have permission to post these because I didn't ask anyone - but they are all over the Internet) is not as kind to Dr. Gates.

Nope. He does not seem so kindly and calm and scholarly in this one.

But I wouldn't be very happy myself if I were standing on my front porch with 3 (at least) rather large police offers surrounding me and me in handcuffs.

This photo was taken by a neighbor by the way. Neighbors figure into this entire incident in a big way, too. The neighbor taking this particular picture is William B. Carter. Carter is also 58 and retired from Bank of America according to one report I read. Same report said he had earned $4,000 for the photo as of July 23rd. I thought that was interesting.

Another "neighbor" began the police involvement in the incident. Her name is Lucia Whalen. She's a fund raiser for Harvard apparently. She was in her office on July 16th and looked out her window. She observed a couple of guys trying to break open a door. She called the cops and reported the incident.

This is the cop who got the call.

His name is James Crowley. He's a sergeant and been on the force 11 years. He's 42. It has been noted that he taught about racial profiling and apparently that's supposed to be of some meaningful importance in the reporting of this incident.

Someone -- maybe many someones -- asked him to apologize.

He refused.

He said he acted appropriately and had done nothing wrong and so there was nothing for which he should apologize.

Then our President (and there's no need for a photo of him because his image is everywhere these days) got involved when asked about the incident in a press conference. He said the police acted stupidly.

Now given the facts of the incident as I have written them and as I understand them to be true it is predictable and understandable what subsequently happened.

Black people (not all but many) said the incident was all about white racism, defended the black victim, recited personal stories of their own encounters with white police racism, and so on.

Lucia Whalen was called a racist because she saw two black guys with backpacks breaking in a door and called the police. All police persons are already assumed to be racists but they were again called racists at every possible turn.

Police everywhere, but mostly white ones, said the President didn't know the facts and shouldn't have gotten involved and that they were not stupid and not racists and that they acted appropriately and so on and so on.

Pundits -- but only white ones -- said the President made a rookie mistake, derailed his health care program; said racism was alive and well in America and we have a long way to go; said it was not just about racism but also elitism (smart Harvard people versus dumb police officers); and a bunch of other stuff.

Regular white people that I know did not initially have too much opinion about the incident until it became part of popular culture. Then the opinions expressed were mostly that you shouldn't screw around with people whose jobs allow them to carry guns and handcuffs.

I've had several incidents in my personal experience that returned to my consciousness as a result of this one.

Long, long ago I was already at work in the wee hours of the still dark morning. My then wife heard someone trying to break in and called me and the cops. When I got home I rushed into the house and right out the back door. I was confronted by two officers with guns drawn on both sides. They had no idea who I was and made me raise my hands and stop. Then I had to prove who I was and that I belonged there. And let me tell you I made no sudden movements and was extremely cautious about every little move I made.

Years after that I and my entire family was home sick with the flu. Somehow we set off the alarm which was monitored and the monitoring company called the police. We straightened things out with the monitor but it was too late to recall the gendarmes. So two officers arrived at my front door and I answered in my robe and best illness marked appearance. The police had no sympathy and demanded -- yes demanded -- my ID. I had to return upstairs to get it and they accompanied me inside but let me go upstairs alone. I rested much easier when they left I can tell you.

Several times I've had to go to an office to meet police because of alarms and actual burglaries. I can tell you that in every instance the police (both men and women, black and white and other) have been at very high alert. There was palatable tension. And their tension alone made me have a lot of tension, too. Usually I was already tense because of the alarm.

A couple of times I've rather stupidly entered a dark warehouse or office alone when an alarm was going off. It is scary.

Truthfully I am kind of cynical about this entire Henry Louis Gates incident.

Not the original incident. I think it was just exactly what it seemed.

But I am suspicious of Gates' subsequent behavior. I think he may have taken advantage of what he perceived to be an opportunity for some publicity. Gates is apparently one of the smartest people in the world. It is hard for me to believe he did not understand or anticipate the result of his action.

And, yes, I do not think the cop was as smart as Gates and I suspect he did fail to anticipate and think through the results of his action. So, yes, I am being a bit stereotypical myself.

And the President of the Unite States? I am absolutely cynical that he "made a rookie mistake." These things are like performances and highly choreographed. And the President is also very smart. It is just hard for me to believe he didn't understand what he was doing.

You have to admit that Gates received publicity that you simply couldn't have purchased at any price. And it cannot be bad for his career -- which appears to be a professional racial victim advocate. And Mr. Obama is his friend. And you know what they say about friends in high places.

Now I don't know any of these people and if I did I might dismiss all my conjecture. It is only conjecture.

But everyone else is conjecturing all over the place so I figured I might as well, too.

No Place

Sunday morning I watched the local political show that comes on just before "Meet The Press." "Flash Point" is its name.

There is a moderator who attempts a neutrality of sorts, a democrat, and a republican. Usually there is a guest. The "democrat" always says bad things about republicans. The republican responds and the democrat attacks back and so on. The democrat's attacks always seem personal to me.

Usually the republican guy tries to be less personal in his own attacks but sometimes he, too, slides into personal attacks. Maybe less frequently than the democrat I think but hard to measure.

But it is called "Flash Point" so it is certainly not surprising that the format is adversarial and hostile at that. And the democrat is an attorney and attorneys seem more adversarial to me in general than most folks. The republican is a businessman who served as mayor once.

I really do not like to say bad things about other people. I was thinking that this morning while I watched that show. I think the republican guy lost his last couple of elections probably because he isn't very good at saying bad things about other people. Others disagree with me of course.

The democrat is really good at it. But he lost his elections, too. Maybe he is just a bit too abrasive about it.

I guess there's a skill level to it. Some politicians are really good at it. Some not.

So in that way I don't find a place for me in the culture. I don't want to say bad things about anyone. That's not very popular right now. Nearly everyone it seems has something bad to say about everyone else.

I always wonder what they say about me to the next person that they meet. I bet you anything it is something bad though.

So I think there's no place for me at the proverbial table of political discourse.

Not that I think there should be really nor am I much interested anymore. It seems tiresome now to me. I've seen nearly all of this before now. My dad used to try to tell me this and I never could understand him. Finally I begin to see what he meant.

President Obama and Leadership

Tuesday evening I watched President Obama's speech and subsequent press conference.

Wednesday morning I resumed my Bible study. I am now in Judges.

Now I am thinking about leadership.

There was certainly a notable lack of good leadership in Israel and the people paid dearly because of it. The Bible hides nothing but relates it all whether good or bad.

But what about our own leadership?

I liked President Obama's press conference. For one thing I like the fact that he held one. And I liked that the speech part was short and to the point. I liked that he took questions from the press corps. I thought his answers were too long although I understand the subject of our economy is exceedingly complex. I thought the questions were irritatingly shallow. I don't know if they are screened or not.

The President and I have different perspectives. I would do things differently if I were working on these problems. On the other hand I do recognize that the problems facing the country are quite severe. I think it would be unconscionable for us to do nothing. But there are probably as many "what to do" ideas as there are people. But we have one President at a time and we all participated in our system a few months ago that put Mr. Obama in office. So these are his problems now to solve.

But I am not so interested right now in his solutions as I am in his effort to lead us.

I think he has done pretty well so far.

For one thing he is setting what I consider to be a very good example.

In the press conference he did not do a lot of finger pointing. In fact he admitted there were many reasons why our current situation exists. He exercised a lot of self-control while admitting that he was indeed angry. He even said that anger and outrage were not going to solve anything. He was very serious and yet projected calm assurance and optimism.

I think one of the first things a leader has to do is set a good example. I think he has done this admirably well. It is too bad that so many on either side of the President fail to follow his example. But at least he's made a start and that's better than nothing at all.

He laid out in summary fashion the problems and briefly discussed the solutions and then gave a reason why he had made his choices. Obviously there will be many who disagree with him as he stated. So I think he projected a certain amount of wisdom in dealing with the problems.

He was encouraging but certainly not Pollyannish.

At the same time he has big goals especially about reforming health care. I, for one, cannot and will not defend the current health care system. And I say that based on my own experience with it for the last decade. As far as I am concerned the way we do things now is nearly insane. I am very willing to give some other ideas a chance.

I think the President shows courage and perseverance to continue to reach for new solutions in the health care area.

I also like the fact that he is remaining faithful to his promises and I like that he is loyal and faithful to his staff. I think those are marks of leadership.

So at this point I think this man, Barak Obama, is showing good marks of leadership and I think he deserves the chance to put his plans into action.

Another mark of leadership is recognizing when you're wrong and adjusting course. We may have already seen some of that with this President but generally it is way too early to know.

That remains for the future. But I am encouraged so far.

A Gay-Marriage Solution: End Marriage?

A Gay-Marriage Solution: End Marriage?
By MICHAEL A. LINDENBERGER

I read the article on Yahoo. It arises from an article by two professors at Pepperdine University.

Basically their argument is that there are a good many religious sacraments and rituals that are commonly practiced by adherents of various faiths that have no place in the law of the land. Examples of such sacraments given include Jewish bar mitzvah, Catholic confirmation, and baptism.

Marriage, alone, has both religious sacrament and legal status.

So the professors propose that we simply do away with legal marriage and leave it entirely to the religious groups who value it.

They (the profs) recognize that we would have to create a new kind of legal entity to replace marriage. The Yahoo article mentions a certificate of family or civil union. But really it could be named anything other than marriage to remove the religious meaning.

Whatever it would be called would be available equally to all couples who wanted to so engage each other.

And it would, of course, not preclude those who wanted to also avail themselves of religious marriage in whatever faith of choice. Well, I suppose also it would have to be membership in good standing of whatever faith of choice.

I've thought of this myself as a reasonable solution to the current controversy. It seems rather a good and fair choice to me. After all a lot of people who marry really do not care about the religious basis I think. Or at least as practiced it does not seem so to me.

According to the Yahoo article it has gained some momentum.

I wonder if we are ready to lose the marriage label for civil unions? I don't have much attachment to the civil version myself.

It also poses some interesting issues. For instance you could terminate the legal contract of marriage. But what about the religious contract? Or what if one or both individuals left the original church fellowship? And that's not to mention denominations and world wide religions and so on.

Still I think the idea has considerable merit.

American Legion Versus The White House

Update: The Administration backed off this proposal March 18, 2009

I could not believe this when I was first told about it. I find this terribly upsetting. There are several articles around but I think this one from The American Legion Our Voice page is good so I chose it.

It seems to me that if we ask our military personnel to serve and while they are serving they become injured; then, at the very lest we owe them appropriate medical care.

This idea of pushing this obligation onto the private insurers seems unconscionable as well as impractical.

Legion to White House: Don't Bill Our Heroes

Legion to White House: Don't Bill Our Heroes
By administrator
Created Mar 16 2009 - 9:51pm

WASHINGTON, DC (March 16, 2009) – The leader of the nation’s largest veterans organization says he is “deeply disappointed and concerned” after a meeting with President Obama today to discuss a proposal to force private insurance companies to pay for the treatment of military veterans who have suffered service-connected disabilities and injuries. The Obama administration recently revealed a plan to require private insurance carriers to reimburse the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) in such cases.

“It became apparent during our discussion today that the President intends to move forward with this unreasonable plan,” said Commander David K. Rehbein of The American Legion. “He says he is looking to generate $540-million by this method, but refused to hear arguments about the moral and government-avowed obligations that would be compromised by it.”

The Commander, clearly angered as he emerged from the session said, “This reimbursement plan would be inconsistent with the mandate ‘… to care for him who shall have borne the battle…’ given that the United States government sent members of the armed forces into harm’s way, and not private insurance companies. I say again that The American Legion does not and will not support any plan that seeks to bill a veteran for treatment of a service connected disability at the very agency that was created to treat the unique need of America’s veterans!”

Commander Rehbein was among a group of senior officials from veterans service organizations joining the President, White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emmanuel, Secretary of Veterans Affairs Eric Shinseki and Steven Kosiak, the overseer of defense spending at the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). The group’s early afternoon conversation at The White House was precipitated by a letter of protest presented to the President earlier this month. The letter, co-signed by Commander Rehbein and the heads of ten colleague organizations, read, in part, “ There is simply no logical explanation for billing a veteran’s personal insurance for care that the VA has a responsibility to provide. While we understand the fiscal difficulties this country faces right now, placing the burden of those fiscal problems on the men and women who have already sacrificed a great deal for this country is unconscionable.”

Commander Rehbein reiterated points made last week in testimony to both House and Senate Veterans’ Affairs Committees. It was stated then that The American Legion believes that the reimbursement plan would be inconsistent with the mandate that VA treat service-connected injuries and disabilities given that the United States government sends members of the armed forces into harm’s way, and not private insurance companies. The proposed requirement for these companies to reimburse the VA would not only be unfair, says the Legion, but would have an adverse impact on service-connected disabled veterans and their families. The Legion argues that, depending on the severity of the medical conditions involved, maximum insurance coverage limits could be reached through treatment of the veteran’s condition alone. That would leave the rest of the family without health care benefits. The Legion also points out that many health insurance companies require deductibles to be paid before any benefits are covered.

Additionally, the Legion is concerned that private insurance premiums would be elevated to cover service-connected disabled veterans and their families, especially if the veterans are self-employed or employed in small businesses unable to negotiate more favorable across-the-board insurance policy pricing. The American Legion also believes that some employers, especially small businesses, would be reluctant to hire veterans with service-connected disabilities due to the negative impact their employment might have on obtaining and financing company health care benefits.

“I got the distinct impression that the only hope of this plan not being enacted,” said Commander Rehbein, “is for an alternative plan to be developed that would generate the desired $540-million in revenue. The American Legion has long advocated for Medicare reimbursement to VA for the treatment of veterans. This, we believe, would more easily meet the President’s financial goal. We will present that idea in an anticipated conference call with White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emmanuel in the near future.

“I only hope the administration will really listen to us then. This matter has far more serious ramifications than the President is imagining,” concluded the Commander.

Post-Christian United States?

I noticed two stories about religion on Yahoo's news front page on Tuesday, March 10, 2009.

The second one carried the title: Survey sees a drift away from religion in America. That article goes on to discuss the results of the American Religious Self-Identification Survey (ARIS). The first line is 'Christianity's hold on many Americans is slipping, losing out not to other faiths but to "no faith."'

The first article I noticed was in the Opinion section of Yahoo which I often disregard. But I guess it was the headline that grabbed my attention: The Coming Evangelical Collapse by Michael Spencer. Since I am one of the group that self-identifies as evangelical I am always interested in its collapse.

The Yahoo link points to the Yahoo article which is taken from The Christian Science Monitor. That article is a piece from a more extensive post by Michael Spencer on his blog, InternetMonk.com. (Cool name for a blog I thought.)

His blog post is The Coming Evangelical Collapse (as if you could not guess).

I found it to be a thoughtful and easily read piece. It stirred up a lot of interest around the old Internet ending up on The Drudge Report among other high traffic sites.

I liked Spencer's blog so much that I've added it to my own blog roll. I will definitely follow his blog for a while at least.

The ARIS survey is interesting to me for several reasons in addition to the fact that more people identify with no religion. One is that 76% of us identify ourselves as Christian but fewer than 70% of us express belief in a personal God. Some 34% of us describe ourselves as born again which is largely understood to be the same as evangelical.

That born again (or evangelical) group also has the oldest of us comparatively with "old" meaning over 50 years of age. This goes along I suspect with the general aging of our population.

Spencer says that within 10 years evangelicals will be halved in number and that many of the ministries that now exist will cease to function or be changed so drastically as to be unidentifiable. Further he believes that there will be rising anti-Christian intolerance that will be startling in both quantity and quality.

He then proceeds to mention seven (7) reasons he believes this will occur: identification with political conservatism; failure to pass on our beliefs to our offspring; current church structure; inability to withstand secularism; good will become bad and viceversa; lack of confidence in Scripture; and, inability to raise money.

I found the comments on Spencer's blog to be as interesting or more so than his article. I am interested particularly in the comments of those who identify themselves as non-Christians and who have such negative opinions about evangelicals.

I agree with much of Spencer's statements about evangelicals. And I definitely can imagine the results he predicts. Whether they happen or not I have no idea.

But really I think we already are in a post-Christian era in the United States. I say this because even among those who claim to be born again there is such widespread difference of opinion as to make any kind of unity nearly impossible. More importantly I think there is so much ignorance of Scripture that wearing the Christian label really means very little in terms of practice. So while there may still be numerical majority by a significant degree I think in fact we have already reached the place where non-Christian influence is more important in most areas of life.

Clearly the Republican party is disassociating itself from the Christian evangelical community and the Democratic party was never interested in the first place. The RNC chairman, for instance, is publicly pro-choice. The recent decision to fund more experimentation on human stem cells is surely another sign of deteriorating influence. Certainly it seems likely that the evangelical view of marriage will be overturned as well.

It is very interesting to me to contemplate what the United States will look like if we become increasingly non-Christian and more secular.

I suspect there will be more restrictions on the tax status of churches, particularly the evangelical mega-Churches. I think there will eventually be a removal of references to God at nearly every public level including currency and the pledge and nearly all aspects of government.

I would not be surprised that evolution is mandated to be taught exclusively as truth in private schools and home schools as well as public. I think education will be increasingly critical of historical Christian influence. I suspect home schooling will be eventually abolished or so hampered as to make it impractical. I would neither be surprised to see new churches disallowed unless they meet certain standards such as repudiating certain doctrines and embracing others.

Sharing one's faith is likely to be more and more discouraged in all venues and labeled as proselytizing or cultural terrorism.

I think these things are not so far fetched.

There already is emotional persuasion to forgo some Christian ideas. Really it is not so hard to imagine that escalating to physical persuasion as well. And it will be excused I think by pointing to the supposed bad that Christians have inflicted on the advancement of culture.

It is not so easy to tolerate ridicule for whatever reasons. There are plenty of people who view themselves as victims of Christianity that would happily turn the table. In that event there surely will be many who will choose to embrace some other religion, or none, rather than remain. That's especially true as the hostility increases.

So there will probably be fewer and smaller evangelical churches. I wonder what will happen to all the church buildings? I wonder if other religions will modify them for themselves?

If the number of evangelicals is halved there is surely no need for as many big ones as there are now.

I wonder if there will be blatant discrimination in the private workplace and government, too? I wonder if there will be a kind of religious don't ask don't tell policy first?

No, it does not seem that implausible.

Israel Iran Showdown Approaching

Iran Launches Satellite in a Challenge for Obama
New York Times February 3, 2009

Binyamin Netanyahu to be Israel's next Prime Minister
Times OnLine February 20, 2009

Mullen: Iran has fissile materials for bomb
AP March 1, 2009

In a shift from the Bush administration,
President Obama is actively seeking to engage Iran on a series of
issues, from its nuclear program to Afghanistan.
Reuters March 3, 2009

This all seems pretty ominous to me.

The first article means that Iran has missiles capable of hitting western Europe and that it could deploy satellites as weapons.

Binyamin Netanyahu is likely to form a government with a harder line about Iran and nukes.

The third article seems to indicate that Iran can rather quickly have an actual nuclear weapon.

So Iran would have both a weapon and a means of delivery.

The fourth article showing the Obama administration's desire to be more friendly to Iran could make both Iran and Israel wonder about United States support for Israel in any kind of confrontation.

All in all a very dangerous set of developments.

Rosy Scenario

I read an article the other day about President Obama's budget submission. In the article there was a snippet I found funny about the Reagan administration. It was that the highest ranking female in the administration was Rosy Scenario. I laughed when I read it.

The main point of the article is that the proposed budget is overly optimistic in estimating government revenue.

The budget estimates that revenues for 2009 will fall by 13.4% resulting in a deficit of $1.75 Trillion. That is $1,750,000,000,000.

The GDP (gross domestic product) actually shrank by 6.2% in the last quarter of 2008. The administration is estimating the economy will shrink an additional 1.2% in 2009.

Others are predicting nearly twice as much shrinkage and some even more than that.

The problem is that none of those making predictions expected the 6.2% number.

Just guessing I suspect the economy is going to retract far more in 2009 than is estimated by the administration. I also suspect the cost of the ambitious programs proposed will be more than estimated.

Moreover I really see nothing that the administration is proposing that is likely to cause the economy to grow. Taxes have to increase. Regardless who is paying the taxes there still is going to be less money left in the private sector. And there is lots more government red tape proposed which increases costs by its very nature. I honestly cannot see how this will result in more private sector jobs or greater GDP.

Another thing that I really do not understand is the health benefits program proposal. People on Medicare and Medicaid are not exactly doing great as it is. Cutting benefits to those programs and redistributing that money to those with no coverage at all seems ill conceived to me at best.

I am not exactly pessimistic yet but neither have I any optimism left.

P.S. - Paul Harvey

I read this morning that Paul Harvey died yesterday. I knew he was a bit younger than my Dad and Mom. I remember him in 1970 telling then President Nixon to get out of Vietnam. I remember when "Rest of the Story" was new. It was in 1976 according to the article I read.

Talk about optimism though: when he was 82 he signed a 10 year contract with ABC. That was in 2000. Pretty close.