So the Supreme Court recently agreed to hear a case in which several religious non-profit organizations are asking to be exempt from including Obamacare-mandated contraception coverage in the insurance they provide for their employees. This gets into at least two major national issues, religious liberty and healthcare reform.
Let's start with the healthcare angle. I've said before that I see no reason for employers to be involved in providing healthcare. The practice began decades ago as a means of offering value, or perks, to attract and retain employees without raising wages. Requiring companies to do so, as Obamacare does, only perpetuates this absurd situation. It obliges all companies to become expert in a field outside their own industry; it removes choice from the employees as the company must make those decisions instead; it increases costs to the company (and the entire system) without actually providing any direct health care. When President Obama first called for national healthcare reform, he spoke of a national, single-payer system. My vision of such a system is one that would eliminate employers and insurance companies from the equation entirely. Both of these entities are mere middle men who add no value to our national healthcare enterprise. Employers, as I've already said, have to add staff with some expertise in health benefit systems, to research, select, offer, explain and provide coverage to the employees. Insurers simply pay the medical and other health-related bills that would otherwise be paid by consumers (patients). Meanwhile, these insurers are profit-driven companies like any other with high executive salaries and bonuses that must be paid by this system. As a sign that this system is convoluted, please consider that our current healthcare insurance model is the only type of insurance we buy that we really try to collect from. We also buy auto, home, theft and life insurance, but we never hope to need to file a claim against them. A system of national healthcare should be run by the federal government, paid for by taxes, available to all citizens, and need only cover catastrophic needs. We don't need coverage for routine care.
With regard to the religious liberty issues, we cannot allow citizens to claim exemption on religious grounds from any area of life where they feel offended. We all need to realize that we live in a diverse nation and that we will rub elbows with non-believers of every stripe from time to time. In this case, these religious organizations operate as employers, and as such they need to comply to the same rules imposed upon all employers. The organizations may retain their beliefs and values, but they cannot be allowed to take away the legal choices of their employees. When providing health care insurance, they are doing just that: providing insurance. It is up to the employee to decide how he or she uses that insurance. The employer is not paying for contraception or abortive measures; the employer is simply providing medical insurance, period. An analogy would be if I paid my taxes and was able to tell the government that I'd allow this money to be used for highways, foreign aid and art museums, but not for military use or federal employee wages because I had "strong" beliefs against government workers including the military.
Wow! It feels really good to have that problem solved. I know these issues are far more complex than I've made them out to be; but do they really need to be?
Thanks for reading, and God bless.
OK, I know that title doesn't mean much given the scope of my readership. Nevertheless, it feels good just to write things down and get it all off my chest. A lot of "issues" have come up over the past few years, and this is what I have to say about them.
Kim Davis, the Kentucky county clerk who doesn't like boys marrying boys. I don't either, but do your job or just quit. SCOTUS has made same-sex marriage legal across the land and you don't have to like it, but do your job. You will never be forced into a same-sex marriage by this ruling.
The 2nd Amendment is not about you or me carrying guns around a shopping mall or even having them in our homes for self defense. It is about the 18th century need for a citizen militia for society's defense, as there was little or no standing military at the time. I emphasize: That was the 18th century! We don't live there anymore. Today we have a large military machine for our national defense as well as state and local police forces to protect our streets and neighborhoods. When a few people die because of a faulty ignition switch, society acts with indignation against the manufacturer. Repeated killings in our schools, movie theaters, shopping malls, neighborhoods and streets bring no such action against the makers of the offending instruments. The irony is that the ignition switch was simply not doing its intended task properly, whereas guns are intentionally designed for no purpose other than to kill. Yes, it's mentally ill people who kill, and their initials are N.R.A.
The Republican Party. Oh my goodness, what a mess! Reince Priebus needs to grab the wheel of this ship before it sinks. Kick the Tea Party out to drown in their own self-righteousness, and focus the party on sound economics, strong foreign policy, military strength and efficient government.
Republican Presidential Debates. How in the world can this party allow TV news media types to trot out their candidates (all successful and proven leaders in their own fields) like schoolchildren on stage to perform "at the moderators' discretion"? Since when is it proper for these moderators to argue with a candidate as though they were themselves running for the highest office? In the most recent circus sideshow, I fully expected any one of the candidates to simply walk off stage*; and the others would have all followed. I have no respect whatsoever for the news companies who have run these shows, and even less for the party leaders who allow their candidates to be so embarrassed. It all began with the first question in the first debate (conservative Fox News, by the way) about who would vow not to run as an independent if not selected as the Republican candidate. What national issue is addressed by such questioning? Curiously I am watching Fox News as I write this. Meghan Kelly, Bill O'Reilly and Greta Van Susteren have all spoken mockingly about the latest debate run by CNBC. Do they not realize it all started with the poorly run Fox News debate in August?
The Democratic Party is perhaps the best hope for the Republicans. Here the problem is they have only one real candidate, the heir apparent, who has been running for the presidency for 20 years. The media were talking of her running before her husband left office. In fact it was often rumored that Hillary was the real brains behind Bill's office. She was on target 8 years ago when a group of uncooperative backers promoted Barack Obama and sidelined her career. Now she's back and, according to all the polls, perhaps unbeatable. It all depends on whom the Republicans select to oppose her.
Black Lives Matter. Of course they do. My real issue here is the way President Obama has mishandled news-making incidents from Trayvon Martin to Michael Brown and others. By adding his personal commentary to these events within hours or days of their occurrence, he has steered and provoked public opinion before the facts have been fully known. In each of these situations, after offering sympathy to the victims and their families, he should have simply asked that the justice system be allowed to work, without his or anyone else's interference. That's leadership.
Religious Freedom has always been at the basis of American life, as it still is; it's clearly in the First Amendment. The problem is that American life has always been dominated by white, protestant males, and we had become comfortable living with their interpretation of "religious freedom." Now that interpretation is being challenged by women, atheists, Muslims, non-whites, homosexuals and other minorities, and the establishment is forced to try to redefine freedom back to their liking. Religious freedom is guaranteed by the constitution, which makes religious freedom subject to the document that guarantees it. Therefore, we as citizens are free to express our religious convictions as long as they do not violate the laws of the land. When there is apparent conflict between religious convictions and the law, the law must be upheld.
De-funding Obamacare, Planned Parenthood, Medicaid, Social Security or The Fed: Get over it. These things aren't going away. Fix the problems if you want, but don't slam a thumb tack with a sledge hammer.
I'm sure there are other issues I could highlight, but that's enough for now. If anyone reads this, you at least will know where I stand. I am not the final word, nor am I trying to persuade anyone to my way of thinking. On the contrary, I am open to persuasion myself. Thanks for reading, and God bless you.
footnote:
* An awesome scenario I hoped to see during the debate:
(Any candidate, but probably Trump) "Look, I have a fully outfitted news truck parked outside prepared to broadcast a true debate online. I'm leaving this sideshow and anyone who wants to engage in real issues is welcome to join me."
And he walks offstage. I'm sure they'd all be sued for breach of contracts, but politics would have been taken out of the hands of the media.
I said I was back and then didn't write anything for a few months again. Well I'll try harder now that -- you guessed it! -- campaign season is back.
The Republicans have the first of, I'm sure, many so-called debates coming up soon on August 6th. I say "so-called debate" because ten candidates will not be able to interact with one another during a 90-minute show. Assuming introductions and questions by the moderator take up only 10 minutes, that leaves just 8 minutes of speaking time that any candidate can expect to make his/her points. I suspect it will simply be a question-answer time between the moderator and each candidate. Still the nation will have an initial opportunity to hear the hopefuls express their views on specific topics. Hopefully, this program will unfold with dignity and respect. If speakers begin attacking or interrupting one another, it will quickly become the comic sideshow that we saw four years ago. May as well ask Simon Cowell to produce the show.
The problems for the Republicans are:
1. There are too many candidates, and some of them cannot be considered seriously. Candidates probably will not begin dropping out of this race until after the first primaries. That means we'll have this current cast of characters vying for press time for the next six months and several more TV stage appearances. As for candidates not to be taken seriously, I tentatively withdraw that comment, as one never knows what may happen.
2. Once again, Republican candidates must walk a fine line between two sets of voters without seeming to change their views. First they need to appeal to primary voters who are skewed toward the conservative. That means they must indicate support for things like abortion bans, immigration restrictions, certain religious freedoms, gun ownership and restraints on government (entitlements and control that is, not military support.) The party's nominee, on the other hand, will need to broaden his/her appeal to a larger segment of the general population to stand a chance of winning the general election. Of course that also depends on how badly the Democrats perform.
Democrats have their own set of challenges. Mrs. Clinton is overwhelmingly expected to win the nomination. However, she has been "running" for president for the past 16 years and has been in the national spotlight for 24 years. Yesterday's news? Her closest rival right now is a left wing Independent. Those debates are bound to be interesting in their own way.
I'll try to have more to say soon. Thanks for reading, and God bless.
I first started really thinking about things political during the 2008 election cycle. I had just retired and had time to sit up watching the evening news shows, both left and right slanting. Campaigning was intensely interesting that year with no incumbent candidate running, both parties offering a full field of potential presidents, and the real possibility of either the nation's first black or female presidential nominee. Soon afterward the Tea Party burst on the scene, seemingly just to protest the result of that election and managing to put their collective feet in their mouths time and again. These developments eventually got me interested in sharing my thoughts by starting this blog page.
I've used this blog to air my views on various topics and to invite respectful debate. I've also chronicled awesome motorcycle trips and other events in my life. Lately, I've tried many times to post here but just haven't had the strength of opinion to write. Issues have come and gone without the benefit of my proffered wisdom. Now I see things heating up again in various worldly arenas. Certainly, this next election cycle could be every bit as exciting as 2008, and I'm sure I'll get into it soon. However, I first feel the need to share my thoughts on recent international events, specifically concerning the various groups of self-proclaimed Islamic Jihadists, their apparent hatred for the rest of the world and where I think the U.S. needs to stand.
After the U.S. was invaded and attacked on 9/11/01, I applauded president Bush when he announced a war on terror, and those who harbor terrorists. I had to agree when, after fair warning, the nation of Afghanistan was unfortunately bombed to bits by the U.S. However, I never understood how Iraq was connected to 9/11, and I felt betrayed by the reasons given for our involvement in that war. As these struggles lagged into years, it became apparent we were destroying cultures but not necessarily finding the terrorists we sought.
I supported president Obama when he verbalized his intentions to end these conflicts and bring U.S. troops home. I also generally agree it is preferable to seek diplomatic solutions to world friction and to avoid military interventions if at all possible. I basically despise the thought of war but recognize its unfortunate need from time to time. I found my thoughts and feelings put into words when I visited the World War II memorial in D.C. last summer. One of the great quotes commemorated there really spoke to me as I read these words spoken near the end of that long global conflict:
We are a nation of great liberty, freedom and peace. Our beautiful flag represents our passion to the freedom-loving nations of the world who have looked to us to protect and enforce these ideals for the past 70 years. Sometimes that can be done by example, sometimes through diplomacy and aid. But as long as there are those who would deny freedom, there remains the possibility that force may regretfully be required to protect the liberties the people of the earth cherish and deserve. To this end, it becomes imperative the U.S. maintain that "overwhelming force" demonstrated 70 years ago -- not to be the world's bully, expecting other nations to become in all ways like us, but as the greatest deterrent to those spewing hatred, fear and oppression of the weak.
Today there is an evil in the world reminiscent of that which drew us into global war seven decades ago. Nearly every nation on earth opposes the vision of ISIS and their fellow terrorists and the ruthless means being used to bring their vision to fruition. It appears this is not a problem to be resolved via diplomacy. The U.N. and the U.S. must be prepared to get involved where necessary as a demonstration to the world that we are still willing and able to fight for, win and maintain world peace and liberty.
God bless America. Hail the Red, White and Blue!
Thanks for reading my thoughts -- I'm back.
