I admit it. I never expected the reaction from the electorate in Massachusetts, and was struggling with exactly what it meant. Did I (and Barack Obama) totally miscalculate what the country wanted? Were the extremes in each Party correct that compromise and cooperation were a path to failure?
The latest poll from the results of the election said that three-quarters, that's 75%, of those who voted for Scott Brown want him to work with Democrats on legislation and fifty percent (50%) specifically want him to do so on the health care legislation.
So while the Massachusetts voters felt that the country under Democratic control had gone off track (what the Republicans have been telling us) what they really were saying is that they are tired of the old partisan politics and want to end this dysfunctional government.
How can we expect the government to handle something as complex as health care if we can't even find a terrorist when his father tell us he is a threat?
So Democrats and Republicans take note! The voters want action, cooperation, and an end to the politics which have dominated our recent history. Those in the Democratic Party who are calling for the President's head because he was unwilling to stick to a far-left agenda without seeking cooperation from the other side beware of what you wish for. You may very well end up with a "pure" liberal party - but a much smaller one at that. And those in the Republican Party who see the Massachusetts victory as a license to return to the days of George W Bush where it was full steam ahead and damn the consequences better pay heed to what the voters were truly saying.
THIS IS OUR COUNTRY, NOT YOURS and WE WANT IT BACK!
There is a better way to tackle the difficult task of solving the budget, jobs, health care, and foreign policy issues. Both sides have people with good ideas and locking them out of the process does not win our favor. For standing in the wings are less partisan people like Michael Bloomberg and Colin Powell who may well realize that their love of country supercedes their fear of taking on the current political system. The voters want solutions, not platitudes and partisan politics.
Are you listening?
Sunday, January 24, 2010
Monday, December 28, 2009
2009 - A Mixed Bag for Barack Obama
With health care reform on the verge of passing, unemployment remaining at historically high levels, a stock market recovery that exceeds most years, two wars in the Middle East that won't go away, a much more supportive Europe, a budget deficit that exceeds anything previously imaginable, new restrictions on excesses by financial institutions, and real estate prices still resisting a recovery, this has been a very mixed year for the new President.
While support for his programs has plummeted and even his personal support has declined, he still remains the most respected single person in American politics. Is that a sign of of his popularity or a sign of how unpopular his opponents are?
Looking into the future - 2010 and 2012 - I see two major issues that could dramatically alter the political landscape - Afghanistan and unemployment. With all due respect to the emphasis placed on health care reform over the past few months, only its defeat could have a major impact on the near and mid-term political climate. There will just not be enough time to evaluate its success or failure prior to 2012.
That is not true of the War in Afghanistan. If the new "surge" does not result in a clear victory (such as the capture of Osama bin Ladin) or allow a speedy withdrawal with minimum casualties (neither of which alternative is likely), the repercussions to President Obama could be dramatic.
How dramatic? How about a challenge to his leadership from within the Democratic Party as well as rising opposition from the Republicans.
Even more damaging would be continued high unemployment - 7% or more - through the 2012 primary season.
So which scenario is more likely - a Republican return to power or an internal Democratic challenge? We can wonder who the Republicans have to challenge for the White House in 2012 - Romney, Palin, Hukabee, Canter, Bush (no the other, other Bush)? And if the Democrats challenged their incumbent President, would it be Clinton or Reid or Pelosi or someone new?
But truthfully, will either party go unscathed if the War in Afghanistan is unsuccessful and the economy continues to lag? Could anyone with a connection to the Administration or Congress win the election?
It's doubtful.
If by 2012, the war continues and high unemployment continues, the perfect storm may be created. The public will be looking for someone (anyone) who can offer a new approach not burdened by the political paralysis of the past. They would have to have the notoriety, financial resources, and expertise to take on the existing political structure. H. Ross Perot almost pulled it off by himself, but how much more successful would it be if two such successful men (or women) offered their services to the country.
Would you like to throw out a name or two?
While support for his programs has plummeted and even his personal support has declined, he still remains the most respected single person in American politics. Is that a sign of of his popularity or a sign of how unpopular his opponents are?
Looking into the future - 2010 and 2012 - I see two major issues that could dramatically alter the political landscape - Afghanistan and unemployment. With all due respect to the emphasis placed on health care reform over the past few months, only its defeat could have a major impact on the near and mid-term political climate. There will just not be enough time to evaluate its success or failure prior to 2012.
That is not true of the War in Afghanistan. If the new "surge" does not result in a clear victory (such as the capture of Osama bin Ladin) or allow a speedy withdrawal with minimum casualties (neither of which alternative is likely), the repercussions to President Obama could be dramatic.
How dramatic? How about a challenge to his leadership from within the Democratic Party as well as rising opposition from the Republicans.
Even more damaging would be continued high unemployment - 7% or more - through the 2012 primary season.
So which scenario is more likely - a Republican return to power or an internal Democratic challenge? We can wonder who the Republicans have to challenge for the White House in 2012 - Romney, Palin, Hukabee, Canter, Bush (no the other, other Bush)? And if the Democrats challenged their incumbent President, would it be Clinton or Reid or Pelosi or someone new?
But truthfully, will either party go unscathed if the War in Afghanistan is unsuccessful and the economy continues to lag? Could anyone with a connection to the Administration or Congress win the election?
It's doubtful.
If by 2012, the war continues and high unemployment continues, the perfect storm may be created. The public will be looking for someone (anyone) who can offer a new approach not burdened by the political paralysis of the past. They would have to have the notoriety, financial resources, and expertise to take on the existing political structure. H. Ross Perot almost pulled it off by himself, but how much more successful would it be if two such successful men (or women) offered their services to the country.
Would you like to throw out a name or two?
Sunday, November 22, 2009
A Reasonable Health Care Reform Bill Is Still Possible
If it isn't obvious to Republican moderates, their leadership, and the American public by now, a health care reform bill WILL PASS. Last night's vote in the Senate should have dispelled any doubt. The Democrats cannot afford to let it fail. So the only question now is what kind of bill it will be.
The American people and reasonable members of both political parties want a bill that is affordable (or at least relatively affordable), that addresses the serious flaws in our current health care system. Thus far, political operatives of both parties have been playing the system. Democratic liberals have opted for provisions that will bring the cost of the reforms far above the country's ability to pay for such a plan and refused to include any kind of provision that will limit doctor's liability in order to placate their friends in the trial attorney's lobby. The Republican leadership has solidly fought any attempt on the part of their members to offer any real compromises in the hope that they can scuttle the bill and embarrass the President and the Democratic Party. That is just not going to happen.
Real compromise can take place if people of good faith want it to.
Here are some of the provisions that can be included in the bill and still pass if political buffoonery is removed from the process:
1. A provision that guarantees that people with preexisting conditions will not be left with the alternatives of no insurance or unaffordable insurance.
2. A tort reform provision where patients are guaranteed to receive an amount equal to or in excess of what the attorneys receive AFTER EXPENSES.
3. A limitation of services for illegal immigrants to include only emergency services.
4. A guarantee of reimbursement for certain preventative medical services.
5. A requirement that members of Congress be subject to the same plan as that passed for the American people.
6. An alternative to the current public option provision that will still provide competition where insurance companies cannot dictate ever increasing premiums.
7. A bill where reimbursement is NOT tied to Medicare reimbursement, whose purpose is different from this health care reform.
8. And most importantly, a health care system where neither insurance companies nor the government has final say over what services or prescription medicine is prescribed.
This list is not all-inclusive. There are more compromises that can be included in the bill if both sides agree that the good of the American people is more important than their perceived notion of political advantage. Proposing amendments and then saying we still won't support the bill is not compromise. It is politics at its worse. We need reasonable people from both sides to put forth their MUST HAVES and CANNOT SUPPORT and then agree to vote for anything in the middle, while never letting up in their fight for what they want. That is the way our system is supposed to work.
If not, a health care reform bill WILL PASS that may only lead to higher deficits and more chaos in our health care system.
The American people and reasonable members of both political parties want a bill that is affordable (or at least relatively affordable), that addresses the serious flaws in our current health care system. Thus far, political operatives of both parties have been playing the system. Democratic liberals have opted for provisions that will bring the cost of the reforms far above the country's ability to pay for such a plan and refused to include any kind of provision that will limit doctor's liability in order to placate their friends in the trial attorney's lobby. The Republican leadership has solidly fought any attempt on the part of their members to offer any real compromises in the hope that they can scuttle the bill and embarrass the President and the Democratic Party. That is just not going to happen.
Real compromise can take place if people of good faith want it to.
Here are some of the provisions that can be included in the bill and still pass if political buffoonery is removed from the process:
1. A provision that guarantees that people with preexisting conditions will not be left with the alternatives of no insurance or unaffordable insurance.
2. A tort reform provision where patients are guaranteed to receive an amount equal to or in excess of what the attorneys receive AFTER EXPENSES.
3. A limitation of services for illegal immigrants to include only emergency services.
4. A guarantee of reimbursement for certain preventative medical services.
5. A requirement that members of Congress be subject to the same plan as that passed for the American people.
6. An alternative to the current public option provision that will still provide competition where insurance companies cannot dictate ever increasing premiums.
7. A bill where reimbursement is NOT tied to Medicare reimbursement, whose purpose is different from this health care reform.
8. And most importantly, a health care system where neither insurance companies nor the government has final say over what services or prescription medicine is prescribed.
This list is not all-inclusive. There are more compromises that can be included in the bill if both sides agree that the good of the American people is more important than their perceived notion of political advantage. Proposing amendments and then saying we still won't support the bill is not compromise. It is politics at its worse. We need reasonable people from both sides to put forth their MUST HAVES and CANNOT SUPPORT and then agree to vote for anything in the middle, while never letting up in their fight for what they want. That is the way our system is supposed to work.
If not, a health care reform bill WILL PASS that may only lead to higher deficits and more chaos in our health care system.
Thursday, October 29, 2009
Health Care's Public Option - Pros and Cons
With Joe Lieberman's announcement that he will not vote for the public option, the issue of whether or not a public option is desirable or even necessary has reached a new level of importance in the Congressional debate on health care reform. In his speech on the Senate floor, Senator Lieberman laid out a persuasive argument regarding the current and anticipated deficits and the economic situation we are currently in. Some may question whether his motives may be just as heavily influenced by the number of insurance companies based in Connecticut. But I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt and discuss his objections on their merit.
Sen. Lieberman is willing to delay the passage of health care reform, which he says he strongly supports, because of the current economic crisis in the USA. Yet much of the costs which have led to our deficits are related to the cost of health care. The USA has the highest health care costs of ANY WESTERN COUNTRY, yet is ranked near the bottom of health care efficiency. Our health care costs are continuing to rise faster than inflation and faster than most other western nations. The politics of health care reform in this country are such that there may be no better time in the foreseeable future that comprehensive reform could win passage. It has taken sixteen years since the last debate over health care reform to come this far on the agenda. So effectively delay will probably kill any chance for its passage. From the viewpoint of politics, it may be now or never.
What about alternatives to the proposed bills. Isn't there a better, less expensive way?
The votes to pass health care reform could come from two sources - moderate members of the Republican Party and liberal members of the Democratic Party. So far there has been no indication at all that Republicans will vote for health care reform no matter what compromises are made. In his speech to Congress and the nation, President Obama made three important concessions. One, he offered to delay implementation of the public option for five years. Two, he offered to implement Sen. McCain's interim plan during that five year period. Three, he offered to include tort reform in the health care package.
What was the response of the Republican Party - conservatives and moderates alike? No way! No how!
All the proposals they have made - and some have lots of merit - have not led a single Republican to say, "If this provision is included in the bill I will vote for it. They asked for tort reform - not enough. They asked for members of Congress to be subject to the same plan as every one else - not enough. The House "Blue Dog" Democrats asked for Republican help when they gained control of the bill last month. The moderate Democrats saw an opportunity for a bipartisan bill to be passed in the House. Instead, it was met with a deafening silence. In fact, it seems that the only purpose of these proposals is to try to anger the liberal members of the Democratic Party so that they will not vote for health care reform.
What eventually happened in the House committee is what the Republicans and the country are going to get - a more liberal bill. Neither the moderate nor liberal members of the Democratic Party have sufficient votes to pass this reform without the other. What the Republicans apparently don't understand is that the Democratic Party cannot afford politically to let health care reform fail.
So in the end, they, you, and I lose. The only way this bill passes is for the "Blue Dog" Democrats to agree to more liberal proposals to be included in the bill. The public option is one of those proposals. Far too many liberal Democrats have insisted that the final bill include a public option.
Will that mean that this country has become socialistic? Well, Medicare and Medicaid are run by the government. So are most educational facilities, the post office, the State Department, the military, and so many other entities which serve us. Some of them compete directly with private enterprise The private universities don't seem to be going out of business. In fact, they seem to be thriving, though they are competing with public universities. Don't tell Harvard or Stanford or Duke that they can't compete.
While many government programs have their share of problems, Enron, WorldCom, Lehman Brothers, AIG and a host of others were not government entities. More importantly, the argument that the government will come between you and your doctor holds little weight when we currently have insurance companies making medical decisions and they have NO INTEREST in your personal welfare unless it adds to their bottom line. No, the government will actually be an improvement over the present system. Perhaps with reform we can actually get it right and restore most of the decisions as ones that should be made between you and your doctor.
Bottom Line - It is important that health care reform be enacted NOW and the best way to do that is with a government run public option. If the Republicans and others who oppose the public option don't agree, let them publicly agree to support a health care reform bill that moderate Democrats can also support and let us put the squeeze on the liberal Democrats.
Sen. Lieberman is willing to delay the passage of health care reform, which he says he strongly supports, because of the current economic crisis in the USA. Yet much of the costs which have led to our deficits are related to the cost of health care. The USA has the highest health care costs of ANY WESTERN COUNTRY, yet is ranked near the bottom of health care efficiency. Our health care costs are continuing to rise faster than inflation and faster than most other western nations. The politics of health care reform in this country are such that there may be no better time in the foreseeable future that comprehensive reform could win passage. It has taken sixteen years since the last debate over health care reform to come this far on the agenda. So effectively delay will probably kill any chance for its passage. From the viewpoint of politics, it may be now or never.
What about alternatives to the proposed bills. Isn't there a better, less expensive way?
The votes to pass health care reform could come from two sources - moderate members of the Republican Party and liberal members of the Democratic Party. So far there has been no indication at all that Republicans will vote for health care reform no matter what compromises are made. In his speech to Congress and the nation, President Obama made three important concessions. One, he offered to delay implementation of the public option for five years. Two, he offered to implement Sen. McCain's interim plan during that five year period. Three, he offered to include tort reform in the health care package.
What was the response of the Republican Party - conservatives and moderates alike? No way! No how!
All the proposals they have made - and some have lots of merit - have not led a single Republican to say, "If this provision is included in the bill I will vote for it. They asked for tort reform - not enough. They asked for members of Congress to be subject to the same plan as every one else - not enough. The House "Blue Dog" Democrats asked for Republican help when they gained control of the bill last month. The moderate Democrats saw an opportunity for a bipartisan bill to be passed in the House. Instead, it was met with a deafening silence. In fact, it seems that the only purpose of these proposals is to try to anger the liberal members of the Democratic Party so that they will not vote for health care reform.
What eventually happened in the House committee is what the Republicans and the country are going to get - a more liberal bill. Neither the moderate nor liberal members of the Democratic Party have sufficient votes to pass this reform without the other. What the Republicans apparently don't understand is that the Democratic Party cannot afford politically to let health care reform fail.
So in the end, they, you, and I lose. The only way this bill passes is for the "Blue Dog" Democrats to agree to more liberal proposals to be included in the bill. The public option is one of those proposals. Far too many liberal Democrats have insisted that the final bill include a public option.
Will that mean that this country has become socialistic? Well, Medicare and Medicaid are run by the government. So are most educational facilities, the post office, the State Department, the military, and so many other entities which serve us. Some of them compete directly with private enterprise The private universities don't seem to be going out of business. In fact, they seem to be thriving, though they are competing with public universities. Don't tell Harvard or Stanford or Duke that they can't compete.
While many government programs have their share of problems, Enron, WorldCom, Lehman Brothers, AIG and a host of others were not government entities. More importantly, the argument that the government will come between you and your doctor holds little weight when we currently have insurance companies making medical decisions and they have NO INTEREST in your personal welfare unless it adds to their bottom line. No, the government will actually be an improvement over the present system. Perhaps with reform we can actually get it right and restore most of the decisions as ones that should be made between you and your doctor.
Bottom Line - It is important that health care reform be enacted NOW and the best way to do that is with a government run public option. If the Republicans and others who oppose the public option don't agree, let them publicly agree to support a health care reform bill that moderate Democrats can also support and let us put the squeeze on the liberal Democrats.
Wednesday, September 30, 2009
ALL OF US ARE RESPONSIBLE - A MESSAGE ABOUT HEALTHCARE
This is a Yom Kippur, day of atONEment, message from Rabbi Dennis Linson, at Temple Judea, Laguna hills, California; given as a sermon on Monday, September 28, 2009
As Americans we are a curious mix, conflicted in our thoughts and actions. In America, we are idealists, we are utopian thinkers, we are descendants of our founding fathers and of Johnny Appleseed.
At the same time we Americans are rugged individualists, we intensely protect our personal ability to opt out of what’s good for all; preserving, almost at all costs, our freedom to act on what’s good for us.
In our cities, we want clean, efficient, low cost mass transit to help us manage our environment, preserve green space, become energy independent. Yet we personally want our own cars, tax-funded roads to where we want to go and low cost, easy-access parking when we get there.
We want a national system of basic healthcare for all citizens, meaning in other words - for everyone else but us and at the same time for ourselves and for our loved ones we want personalized healthcare without limits to access or treatment options.
This curious mix of societal systems and norms for everyone else while preserving personal choice for us individually leaves us problems without the comprehensive solutions we so desperately seek.
We are as they say, "Mad as hell and we’re not going to take it anymore." Mad that "everyone else" doesn’t have their society-wide solution and mad that we personally, our mom, our dad, our son, our daughter, have problems of affordability, access and choice in getting healthcare we think we deserve. We want what we want when we want it, at a price we can afford; yet we think a basic system of some type is fine for everyone else.
Nikki was a slim and athletic college graduate, who had health insurance, who worked in health care and knew the system. But she had systemic lupus, a chronic inflammatory disease that was diagnosed when she was 21 and gradually left her too sick to work. And once she lost her job, she lost her health insurance.
In any other rich country, Nikki probably would have been fine. Some 80% of lupus patients in the United States live a normal life span. Under a doctor’s care, lupus should be manageable. Nikki tried everything to get medical care, but no insurance company would accept someone with her pre-existing condition.
Finally, Nikki collapsed at her home in Tennessee and she was rushed to a hospital emergency room, which was required to treat her without payment until her condition stabilized. Since money was no longer an issue, the hospital performed 25 emergency surgeries on Nikki, and she spent 6 months in critical care. When Nikki showed up at the emergency room, she received the best of care, and the hospital spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on her care.
But by then it was too late. In 2006, Nikki White died at age 32. Nikki’s doctor said, "Nikki didn’t die from lupus. She died from complications of the failing American health care system."
Nikki White’s story was singled out to be told in both the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times; but Nikki is not unique. According to a recent study done by the National Academy of Sciences, every year 18,000 people die simply because they lacked access to healthcare that would have saved their lives. 18,000 Americans die every year from lack of health access. That’s one person dying every 30 minutes – 8 people just this morning. Not from illness itself, not from crime, but purely from our society’s neglect.
This healthcare crisis is not something only affecting people we don’t know. This healthcare crisis is our crisis; every one of us has been affected by it.
Economists have difficulty; healthcare does not follow simple supply and demand curves. A town with one busy doctor, when adding a second doctor will have two busy doctors. It seems healthcare demand expands to fill available capacity. That’s partly why costs continue to rise and now consume over 17% of our domestic economy.
Yet on recognized health measures we Americans are less healthy than other countries. Our infant mortality and life expectancy are less even than other countries though we spend more money on our healthcare.
Today, some 45 million Americans have no health care insurance. They are people like us, in our neighborhood, young people, middle-aged people, not ready for Social Security people, singles, families…the picture of the uninsured and under-insured is a cross-section of America.
It’s a shanda, a disgrace for our affluent society and a tragedy, that throughout our Jewish history Judaism has wrestled with and therefore has something important to say. Judaism is a tradition with many voices and opinions, and on almost no subject is it responsible to say what "the Jewish view" is. But, in fact, on this issue there is almost wall-to-wall agreement that our Jewish tradition requires any society to make basic health care available to everyone.
I do not invite you into a political conversation. There are senators and representatives on both sides of the aisle, Republicans and Democrats, who are grappling honestly and sincerely with this issue. It seems everyone agrees we need healthcare reform. Democratic and Republican leaders agree reform should provide insurance coverage regardless of preconditions or seriousness of illness. The disagreement is over the details of the reforms being proposed.
I want to be clear about this: There are many different ideas about healthcare reform. But while Judaism teaches we must provide universal access to healthcare. Judaism cannot tell us how to get there. It is unclear which plan is best for our country, whether it should be based on a public option, or private payers, or non-profit co-ops; or whether reform should be built around reforming medical malpractice and allowing insurers to compete across state lines.
The debate about what kind of reform is good and necessary, as long as in the end, some type of serious reform takes place. The most unacceptable thing, from a moral standpoint, is to maintain the status quo.
In response to this crisis, we can teach what Judaism has to say. 4,000 years of Jewish tradition teaches that it is the community’s obligation to provide all its members with access to healthcare. Our Sages learn this obligation to heal from our Torah’s command to return a lost object: Our Talmud teaches this also obligates us to return someone’s lost health. Our Jewish law code states that one who withholds healing is guilty of murder. This of course refers to an individual’s responsibility to heal.
We should know pikuach nefesh saving a life is a foundational principle of Judaism. The most observant Jew will break Shabbat prohibitions to save the life of another. A person mandated by their doctor to eat is prohibited from fasting on Yom Kippur. We are to live by our divine commandments; we are not to harm ourselves or die because of them.
We should know being created in-God’s-image means we’ve been given a divine soul housed in a body given to us by our Creator, and we have an obligation to keep not only our soul, but our body safe from danger. Jewish law does not permit Jews to live in a town without a physician. Accessibility to the doctor is implicit; what’s the point of living in a town with a doctor if you can’t afford to see her? These principles define that we have an obligation to take care of ourselves. Although, we may have insurance; so why should we be worried about others?
First of all, we’re Jews and worrying about others is what we do. We learn al tifrosh min hatzibur, do not separate yourself from the community. For us, our community is beyond the four walls of our synagogue; our community is Orange County, the state of California, the entire USA. Does our society bear any obligation to provide healing to all its members?
Yes, our tradition sees the obligation to heal falling on the entire community. Our rabbis rule that on the basis of the clear obligation of the doctor to heal, a rabbinic court may compel a doctor to provide medical services pro-bono. But that ruling is limited to a case where there’s only one doctor available. What if there is more than one doctor? Which doctor must provide the services?
Since there are two doctors, neither one alone can be viewed as bearing that responsibility. Each could say: let the other do it. In a scenario with more than one doctor, indeed no one doctor can be held singly accountable for providing free services. In such a case a few possible solutions are offered, among the solutions, the doctors divide equally the total number of necessary pro-bono cases, or the doctors are to be paid for their services out of communal funds.
However, since the doctors cannot be held individually responsible, they cannot be forced to offer services pro-bono. If they choose not to provide services pro-bono, the community must then cover the costs of care. Ultimate responsibility for providing healing falls upon the community.
Indeed throughout the ages, whenever foreign rulers granted Jews autonomy to govern ourselves,
Jewish leaders ensured healthcare was provided to all. That is a history of which we should be proud.
Caring for those without access to adequate health care is part of our obligation to be a part of the greater community. You may remember the movie "Schindler’s List" at the end when Schindler is given a ring as a gift. Inside the ring is engraved a quote from our Jewish tradition, "Whoever saves a single soul is credited as though he saved an entire world." Every time we act to save a life, whether as a medical professional, a supporting friend, a blood or organ donor, a mental health professional, a donor to a social service agency, or someone who speaks up for the uninsured, we are saving not only that individual but those who depend on him or her. Every act of compassion affects not only the person in need but concentric circles of people connected to her/his life.
I hope that I have been explicit: the Jewish approach to health care is neither Democrat nor Republican, neither liberal nor conservative. We have an obligation to care for our bodies and as a community to offer health care to all who need it. We should take this obligation seriously every time we enter a voting booth. Talk is not enough to save the loss of those 18,000 lives. The time has come to do something about it – to act.
I do not know which plan is best for our country. I am not here to recommend one solution over another. What I do know about - is our divine commandment to provide healing to those who are ill; our Torah states al titalam - do not run away from doing your part. God tells our prophet Ezekiel that the Temple was destroyed and we were exiled because we did not strengthen the weak and heal those who in need of healing.
I encourage you to act with audacious morality. Today we are bidden to gaze through the prism of morality. We fast; beat our breasts; plead with God to show us compassion; forgive our sins and grant us blessing and well-being in the coming year. In our Haftarah we heard the voice of our prophet Isaiah, admonishing us that it’s not the rituals of Yom Kippur that will elicit God’s blessings: rather it’s our actions of caring and concern for one another that gets God’s attention.
How then can we stand before God seeking God’s mercy when we know we have collectively turned a blind eye to the plight of so many that we simply accept the uninsured as a necessary fact of life? How can we ask God’s compassion, if we as a nation fail to show compassion to the vulnerable in our own midst?
There are several bills before Congress, the details have yet to be worked out. Let me suggest five important steps for each of us to take:
Learn what the options are. Educate yourself. Learn what each would mean. Study the issues; and do not allow shouting and hysteria to persuade you. Be willing to look at all sides of the issue and see merit in an opposing view.
Think compromise. It’s likely in any final version of healthcare reform no one perspective will get everything they want included or excluded. Any first effort at healthcare reform will likely be imperfect. It may not cover everyone you’d like, or may involve costs you don’t like. Yet reform - making healthcare more accessible - is a step in the right direction.
Have courage. This is important. Have courage. Change is scary. We are always afraid of losing what we already have and what is familiar. It is tempting for those with coverage to give in to the fear of less under reform. That need not be the case. Many countries with better coverage for their citizens spend far less per capita on healthcare than we do. The truth is having good coverage today doesn’t mean we’ll have it tomorrow. No one in the current system is safe from having their access cut off or reduced. Six million more Americans will likely lose coverage in the next 12 months, and we or someone close to us could be among them.
Talk about it. Discuss healthcare reform. Engage in the debate, with family, friends, legislators. But make it a respectful, constructive debate, one aimed not at squashing chances for reform but at helping to shape a reform that can work.
Make an informed decision, then take pen to paper and write to Washington. Tell your representatives and Senators Boxer and Feinstein what you think. Tell them what our Jewish tradition teaches. Teach them about the sanctity of our body and our obligation to care for it and lacking affordable health care is a clear impediment to fulfilling that obligation.
One author writes that the line between good and evil, hope and despair does not divide the world between us and them. It runs down the middle of every one of us.
I do not want to talk to you about what you understand about this world,I want to know what you will do about it.
I do not want to know what you hope; I want to know what you will work for.
I do not want your sympathy for the needs of humanity, I want your muscle. Your muscle to educate, and to inform and to work for the change you believe to be right.
G’mar chatima tova. May you be sealed for a good year. [adapted from Rabbis Weiss and Cohen]
As Americans we are a curious mix, conflicted in our thoughts and actions. In America, we are idealists, we are utopian thinkers, we are descendants of our founding fathers and of Johnny Appleseed.
At the same time we Americans are rugged individualists, we intensely protect our personal ability to opt out of what’s good for all; preserving, almost at all costs, our freedom to act on what’s good for us.
In our cities, we want clean, efficient, low cost mass transit to help us manage our environment, preserve green space, become energy independent. Yet we personally want our own cars, tax-funded roads to where we want to go and low cost, easy-access parking when we get there.
We want a national system of basic healthcare for all citizens, meaning in other words - for everyone else but us and at the same time for ourselves and for our loved ones we want personalized healthcare without limits to access or treatment options.
This curious mix of societal systems and norms for everyone else while preserving personal choice for us individually leaves us problems without the comprehensive solutions we so desperately seek.
We are as they say, "Mad as hell and we’re not going to take it anymore." Mad that "everyone else" doesn’t have their society-wide solution and mad that we personally, our mom, our dad, our son, our daughter, have problems of affordability, access and choice in getting healthcare we think we deserve. We want what we want when we want it, at a price we can afford; yet we think a basic system of some type is fine for everyone else.
Nikki was a slim and athletic college graduate, who had health insurance, who worked in health care and knew the system. But she had systemic lupus, a chronic inflammatory disease that was diagnosed when she was 21 and gradually left her too sick to work. And once she lost her job, she lost her health insurance.
In any other rich country, Nikki probably would have been fine. Some 80% of lupus patients in the United States live a normal life span. Under a doctor’s care, lupus should be manageable. Nikki tried everything to get medical care, but no insurance company would accept someone with her pre-existing condition.
Finally, Nikki collapsed at her home in Tennessee and she was rushed to a hospital emergency room, which was required to treat her without payment until her condition stabilized. Since money was no longer an issue, the hospital performed 25 emergency surgeries on Nikki, and she spent 6 months in critical care. When Nikki showed up at the emergency room, she received the best of care, and the hospital spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on her care.
But by then it was too late. In 2006, Nikki White died at age 32. Nikki’s doctor said, "Nikki didn’t die from lupus. She died from complications of the failing American health care system."
Nikki White’s story was singled out to be told in both the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times; but Nikki is not unique. According to a recent study done by the National Academy of Sciences, every year 18,000 people die simply because they lacked access to healthcare that would have saved their lives. 18,000 Americans die every year from lack of health access. That’s one person dying every 30 minutes – 8 people just this morning. Not from illness itself, not from crime, but purely from our society’s neglect.
This healthcare crisis is not something only affecting people we don’t know. This healthcare crisis is our crisis; every one of us has been affected by it.
Economists have difficulty; healthcare does not follow simple supply and demand curves. A town with one busy doctor, when adding a second doctor will have two busy doctors. It seems healthcare demand expands to fill available capacity. That’s partly why costs continue to rise and now consume over 17% of our domestic economy.
Yet on recognized health measures we Americans are less healthy than other countries. Our infant mortality and life expectancy are less even than other countries though we spend more money on our healthcare.
Today, some 45 million Americans have no health care insurance. They are people like us, in our neighborhood, young people, middle-aged people, not ready for Social Security people, singles, families…the picture of the uninsured and under-insured is a cross-section of America.
It’s a shanda, a disgrace for our affluent society and a tragedy, that throughout our Jewish history Judaism has wrestled with and therefore has something important to say. Judaism is a tradition with many voices and opinions, and on almost no subject is it responsible to say what "the Jewish view" is. But, in fact, on this issue there is almost wall-to-wall agreement that our Jewish tradition requires any society to make basic health care available to everyone.
I do not invite you into a political conversation. There are senators and representatives on both sides of the aisle, Republicans and Democrats, who are grappling honestly and sincerely with this issue. It seems everyone agrees we need healthcare reform. Democratic and Republican leaders agree reform should provide insurance coverage regardless of preconditions or seriousness of illness. The disagreement is over the details of the reforms being proposed.
I want to be clear about this: There are many different ideas about healthcare reform. But while Judaism teaches we must provide universal access to healthcare. Judaism cannot tell us how to get there. It is unclear which plan is best for our country, whether it should be based on a public option, or private payers, or non-profit co-ops; or whether reform should be built around reforming medical malpractice and allowing insurers to compete across state lines.
The debate about what kind of reform is good and necessary, as long as in the end, some type of serious reform takes place. The most unacceptable thing, from a moral standpoint, is to maintain the status quo.
In response to this crisis, we can teach what Judaism has to say. 4,000 years of Jewish tradition teaches that it is the community’s obligation to provide all its members with access to healthcare. Our Sages learn this obligation to heal from our Torah’s command to return a lost object: Our Talmud teaches this also obligates us to return someone’s lost health. Our Jewish law code states that one who withholds healing is guilty of murder. This of course refers to an individual’s responsibility to heal.
We should know pikuach nefesh saving a life is a foundational principle of Judaism. The most observant Jew will break Shabbat prohibitions to save the life of another. A person mandated by their doctor to eat is prohibited from fasting on Yom Kippur. We are to live by our divine commandments; we are not to harm ourselves or die because of them.
We should know being created in-God’s-image means we’ve been given a divine soul housed in a body given to us by our Creator, and we have an obligation to keep not only our soul, but our body safe from danger. Jewish law does not permit Jews to live in a town without a physician. Accessibility to the doctor is implicit; what’s the point of living in a town with a doctor if you can’t afford to see her? These principles define that we have an obligation to take care of ourselves. Although, we may have insurance; so why should we be worried about others?
First of all, we’re Jews and worrying about others is what we do. We learn al tifrosh min hatzibur, do not separate yourself from the community. For us, our community is beyond the four walls of our synagogue; our community is Orange County, the state of California, the entire USA. Does our society bear any obligation to provide healing to all its members?
Yes, our tradition sees the obligation to heal falling on the entire community. Our rabbis rule that on the basis of the clear obligation of the doctor to heal, a rabbinic court may compel a doctor to provide medical services pro-bono. But that ruling is limited to a case where there’s only one doctor available. What if there is more than one doctor? Which doctor must provide the services?
Since there are two doctors, neither one alone can be viewed as bearing that responsibility. Each could say: let the other do it. In a scenario with more than one doctor, indeed no one doctor can be held singly accountable for providing free services. In such a case a few possible solutions are offered, among the solutions, the doctors divide equally the total number of necessary pro-bono cases, or the doctors are to be paid for their services out of communal funds.
However, since the doctors cannot be held individually responsible, they cannot be forced to offer services pro-bono. If they choose not to provide services pro-bono, the community must then cover the costs of care. Ultimate responsibility for providing healing falls upon the community.
Indeed throughout the ages, whenever foreign rulers granted Jews autonomy to govern ourselves,
Jewish leaders ensured healthcare was provided to all. That is a history of which we should be proud.
Caring for those without access to adequate health care is part of our obligation to be a part of the greater community. You may remember the movie "Schindler’s List" at the end when Schindler is given a ring as a gift. Inside the ring is engraved a quote from our Jewish tradition, "Whoever saves a single soul is credited as though he saved an entire world." Every time we act to save a life, whether as a medical professional, a supporting friend, a blood or organ donor, a mental health professional, a donor to a social service agency, or someone who speaks up for the uninsured, we are saving not only that individual but those who depend on him or her. Every act of compassion affects not only the person in need but concentric circles of people connected to her/his life.
I hope that I have been explicit: the Jewish approach to health care is neither Democrat nor Republican, neither liberal nor conservative. We have an obligation to care for our bodies and as a community to offer health care to all who need it. We should take this obligation seriously every time we enter a voting booth. Talk is not enough to save the loss of those 18,000 lives. The time has come to do something about it – to act.
I do not know which plan is best for our country. I am not here to recommend one solution over another. What I do know about - is our divine commandment to provide healing to those who are ill; our Torah states al titalam - do not run away from doing your part. God tells our prophet Ezekiel that the Temple was destroyed and we were exiled because we did not strengthen the weak and heal those who in need of healing.
I encourage you to act with audacious morality. Today we are bidden to gaze through the prism of morality. We fast; beat our breasts; plead with God to show us compassion; forgive our sins and grant us blessing and well-being in the coming year. In our Haftarah we heard the voice of our prophet Isaiah, admonishing us that it’s not the rituals of Yom Kippur that will elicit God’s blessings: rather it’s our actions of caring and concern for one another that gets God’s attention.
How then can we stand before God seeking God’s mercy when we know we have collectively turned a blind eye to the plight of so many that we simply accept the uninsured as a necessary fact of life? How can we ask God’s compassion, if we as a nation fail to show compassion to the vulnerable in our own midst?
There are several bills before Congress, the details have yet to be worked out. Let me suggest five important steps for each of us to take:
Learn what the options are. Educate yourself. Learn what each would mean. Study the issues; and do not allow shouting and hysteria to persuade you. Be willing to look at all sides of the issue and see merit in an opposing view.
Think compromise. It’s likely in any final version of healthcare reform no one perspective will get everything they want included or excluded. Any first effort at healthcare reform will likely be imperfect. It may not cover everyone you’d like, or may involve costs you don’t like. Yet reform - making healthcare more accessible - is a step in the right direction.
Have courage. This is important. Have courage. Change is scary. We are always afraid of losing what we already have and what is familiar. It is tempting for those with coverage to give in to the fear of less under reform. That need not be the case. Many countries with better coverage for their citizens spend far less per capita on healthcare than we do. The truth is having good coverage today doesn’t mean we’ll have it tomorrow. No one in the current system is safe from having their access cut off or reduced. Six million more Americans will likely lose coverage in the next 12 months, and we or someone close to us could be among them.
Talk about it. Discuss healthcare reform. Engage in the debate, with family, friends, legislators. But make it a respectful, constructive debate, one aimed not at squashing chances for reform but at helping to shape a reform that can work.
Make an informed decision, then take pen to paper and write to Washington. Tell your representatives and Senators Boxer and Feinstein what you think. Tell them what our Jewish tradition teaches. Teach them about the sanctity of our body and our obligation to care for it and lacking affordable health care is a clear impediment to fulfilling that obligation.
One author writes that the line between good and evil, hope and despair does not divide the world between us and them. It runs down the middle of every one of us.
I do not want to talk to you about what you understand about this world,I want to know what you will do about it.
I do not want to know what you hope; I want to know what you will work for.
I do not want your sympathy for the needs of humanity, I want your muscle. Your muscle to educate, and to inform and to work for the change you believe to be right.
G’mar chatima tova. May you be sealed for a good year. [adapted from Rabbis Weiss and Cohen]
Sunday, September 13, 2009
Robert Hall's, "I'm Tired" and My Response
A friend sent me this commentary from veteran Masschusettes State Senator Robert Hall and asked me to refute it. Below his statement is my response.
"I'm Tired"
by Robert A. Hall
I'll be 63 soon. Except for one semester in college when jobs were scarce, and a six-month period when I was between jobs, but job-hunting every day, I've worked, hard, since I was 18 Despite some health challenges, I still put in 50-hour weeks, and haven't called in sick in seven or eight years. I make a good salary, and I worked to get where I am. Given the economy, there's no retirement in sight, and I'm tired. Very tired.
I'm tired of being told that I have to "spread the wealth around" to people who don't have my work ethic. I'm tired of being told the government will take the money I earned, by force if necessary, and give it to people too lazy or stupid to earn it.
I'm tired of being told that I have to pay more taxes to "keep people in their homes." Sure, if they lost their jobs or got sick, I'm willing to help But if they bought McMansions at three times the price of our paid-off, $250,000 condo, on one-third of my salary, then let the left-wing Congress-critters who passed Fannie and Freddie and the Community Reinvestment Act that created the bubble help them-with their own money.
I'm tired of being told how bad America is by left-wing millionaires like Michael Moore, George Soros, and Hollywood entertainers who live in luxury because of the opportunities America offers. In thirty years, if they get their way, the United States will have the religious freedom and women's rights of Saudi Arabia, the economy of Zimbabwe , the freedom of the press of China , the crime and violence of Mexico , the tolerance for Gay people of Iran, and the freedom of speech of Venezuela . Won't multiculturalism be beautiful?
I'm tired of being told that Islam is a "Religion of Peace," when every day I can read dozens of stories of Muslim men killing their sisters, wives and daughters for their family "honor"; of Muslims rioting over some slight offense; of Muslims murdering Christian and Jews because they aren't "believers"; of Muslims burning schools for girls; of Muslims stoning teenage rape victims to death for "adultery"; of Muslims mutilating the genitals of little girls; all in the name of Allah, because the Qur'an and Shari'a law tells them to.
I believe "a man should be judged by the content of his character, not by the color of his skin."
I'm tired of being told that "race doesn't matter" in the post-racial world of President Obama, when it's all that matters in affirmative action jobs, lower college admission and graduation standards for minorities (harming them the most), government contract set-asides, tolerance for the ghetto culture of violence and fatherless children that hurts minorities more than anyone, and in the appointment of US Senators from Illinois.
I think it's very cool that we have a black president and that a black child is doing her homework at the desk where Lincoln wrote the emancipation proclamation. I just wish the black president was Condi Rice, or someone who believes more in freedom and the individual and less in an all-knowing government.
I'm tired of a news media that thinks Bush's fundraising and inaugural expenses were obscene, but that think Obama's, at triple the cost, were wonderful. That thinks Bush exercising daily was a waste of presidential time, but Obama exercising is a great example for the public to control weight and stress, that picked over every line of Bush's military records, but never demanded that Kerry release his, that slammed Palin, with two years as governor, for being too inexperienced for VP, but touted Obama with three years as senator as potentially the best president ever. Wonder why people are dropping their subscriptions or switching to Fox News?
Get a clue. I didn't vote for Bush in 2000, but the media and Kerry drove me to his camp in 2004.
I'm tired of being told that out of "tolerance for other cultures" we must let Saudi Arabia use our oil money to fund mosques and madrassa Islamic schools to preach hate in America, while no American group is allowed to fund a church, synagogue, or religious school in Saudi Arabia to teach love and tolerance.
I'm tired of being told I must lower my living standard to fight global warming, which no one is allowed to debate. My wife and I live in a two-bedroom apartment and carpool together five miles to our jobs. We also own a three-bedroom condo where our daughter and granddaughter live. Our carbon footprint is about 5% of Al Gore's, and if you're greener than Gore, you're green enough.
I'm tired of being told that drug addicts have a disease, and I must help support and treat them, and pay for the damage they do. Did a giant germ rush out of a dark alley, grab them, and stuff white powder up their noses while they tried to fight it off? I don't think Gay people choose to be Gay, but I damn sure think druggies chose to take drugs. And I'm tired of harassment from cool people treating me like a freak when I tell them I never tried marijuana.
I'm tired of illegal aliens being called "undocumented workers," especially the ones who aren't working, but are living on welfare or crime. What's next? Calling drug dealers, Undocumented Pharmacists"? And, no, I'm not against Hispanics. Most of them are Catholic, and it's been a few hundred years since Catholics wanted to kill me for my religion. I'm willing to fast track for citizenship any Hispanic person, who can speak English, doesn't have a criminal record and who is self-supporting without family on welfare, or who serves honorably for three years in our military... Those are the citizens we need.
I'm tired of latte liberals and journalists, who would never wear the uniform of the Republic themselves, or let their entitlement-handicapped kids near a recruiting station, trashing our military. They and their kids can sit at home, never having to make split-second decisions under life and death circumstances, and bad mouth better people then themselves. Do bad things happen in war? You bet. Do our troops sometimes misbehave? Sure. Does this compare with the atrocities that were the policy of our enemies for the last fifty years-and still are? Not even close.
So here's the deal:
I'll let myself be subjected to all the humiliation and abuse that was heaped on terrorists at Abu Ghraib or Gitmo, and the critics can let themselves be subject to captivity by the Muslims who tortured and beheaded Daniel Pearl in Pakistan, or the Muslims who tortured and murdered Marine Lt. Col. William Higgins in Lebanon, or the Muslims who ran the blood-spattered Al Qaeda torture rooms our troops found in Iraq, or the Muslims who cut off the heads of schoolgirls in Indonesia, because the girls were Christian. Then we'll compare notes. British and American soldiers are the only troops in history that civilians came to for help and handouts, instead of hiding from in fear.
I'm tired of people telling me that their party has a corner on virtue and the other party has a corner on corruption. Read the papers-bums are bipartisan. And I'm tired of people telling me we need bipartisanship. I live in Illinois, where the " Illinois Combine" of Democrats and Republicans has worked together harmoniously to loot the public for years. And I notice that the tax cheats in Obama's cabinet are bipartisan as well.
I'm tired of hearing wealthy athletes, entertainers, and politicians of both parties talking about innocent mistakes, stupid mistakes or youthful mistakes, when we all know they think their only mistake was getting caught. I'm tired of people with a sense of entitlement, rich or poor. Speaking of poor, I'm tired of hearing people with air-conditioned homes, color TVs and two cars called poor. The majority of Americans didn't have that in 1970, but we didn't know we were "poor." The poverty pimps have to keep changing the definition of poor to keep the dollars flowing.
I'm real tired of people who don't take responsibility for their lives and actions. I'm tired of hearing them blame the government, or discrimination, or big-whatever for their problems.
Yes, I'm damn tired.. But I'm also glad to be 63. Because, mostly, I'm not going to get to see the world these people are making. I'm just sorry for my granddaughter.
Robert A. Hall is a Marine Vietnam veteran who served five terms in the Massachusetts State Senate.
Actually my friend, I agree with most what he says. I am sick and tired of politicians, athletes, welfare recipients, illegal immigrants, etc. believing they are entitled to what others have. However, I don't believe that Obama has gotten off scot free from criticism, nor do I believe that Georgw W wasn't deserving of much that he received.
However, I believe that this country deserves more respect than we receive. While we are far from perfect (what the conservative right seems to believe) we are SO MUCH BETTER than most of the rest of the world (what the liberal left seems to believe). I think it is high time for a new political party, one whose focus is on America and not the preservation of their special perks. I wish they would out (not defend) people like Sarah Palin, Michael Moore, and ACORN and embrace people who have the courage to stand up for their principles like Joe Lieberman and Susan Collins.
I believe that taxes should be kept as low as possible and government should be as close to the people as possible. That does not mean (as many conservative Republicans now proclaim) that taxes can be reduced while we increase spending for their pet projects, nor does it mean that taxes should be raised (as many liberal Democrats are demanding) so we can fund all kinds of projects that the government should not be involved in. At one time, the economic mantra of the Republican Party was balanced budgets, not lower taxes and conservatives were highly critical of Democratic Presidents who expressed the desire for the US to nation-build.
I long for Democrats like Scoop Jackson and Republicans like Everitt Dirksen who recognized the value of working together to solve this country's problems, not Nancy Pelosi or Joe Wilson.
I'm sorry if I disappointed you by not disagreeing with the frustration expressed by veteran Massachusetts State Senator Robert Hall. No, I feel it too.
"I'm Tired"
by Robert A. Hall
I'll be 63 soon. Except for one semester in college when jobs were scarce, and a six-month period when I was between jobs, but job-hunting every day, I've worked, hard, since I was 18 Despite some health challenges, I still put in 50-hour weeks, and haven't called in sick in seven or eight years. I make a good salary, and I worked to get where I am. Given the economy, there's no retirement in sight, and I'm tired. Very tired.
I'm tired of being told that I have to "spread the wealth around" to people who don't have my work ethic. I'm tired of being told the government will take the money I earned, by force if necessary, and give it to people too lazy or stupid to earn it.
I'm tired of being told that I have to pay more taxes to "keep people in their homes." Sure, if they lost their jobs or got sick, I'm willing to help But if they bought McMansions at three times the price of our paid-off, $250,000 condo, on one-third of my salary, then let the left-wing Congress-critters who passed Fannie and Freddie and the Community Reinvestment Act that created the bubble help them-with their own money.
I'm tired of being told how bad America is by left-wing millionaires like Michael Moore, George Soros, and Hollywood entertainers who live in luxury because of the opportunities America offers. In thirty years, if they get their way, the United States will have the religious freedom and women's rights of Saudi Arabia, the economy of Zimbabwe , the freedom of the press of China , the crime and violence of Mexico , the tolerance for Gay people of Iran, and the freedom of speech of Venezuela . Won't multiculturalism be beautiful?
I'm tired of being told that Islam is a "Religion of Peace," when every day I can read dozens of stories of Muslim men killing their sisters, wives and daughters for their family "honor"; of Muslims rioting over some slight offense; of Muslims murdering Christian and Jews because they aren't "believers"; of Muslims burning schools for girls; of Muslims stoning teenage rape victims to death for "adultery"; of Muslims mutilating the genitals of little girls; all in the name of Allah, because the Qur'an and Shari'a law tells them to.
I believe "a man should be judged by the content of his character, not by the color of his skin."
I'm tired of being told that "race doesn't matter" in the post-racial world of President Obama, when it's all that matters in affirmative action jobs, lower college admission and graduation standards for minorities (harming them the most), government contract set-asides, tolerance for the ghetto culture of violence and fatherless children that hurts minorities more than anyone, and in the appointment of US Senators from Illinois.
I think it's very cool that we have a black president and that a black child is doing her homework at the desk where Lincoln wrote the emancipation proclamation. I just wish the black president was Condi Rice, or someone who believes more in freedom and the individual and less in an all-knowing government.
I'm tired of a news media that thinks Bush's fundraising and inaugural expenses were obscene, but that think Obama's, at triple the cost, were wonderful. That thinks Bush exercising daily was a waste of presidential time, but Obama exercising is a great example for the public to control weight and stress, that picked over every line of Bush's military records, but never demanded that Kerry release his, that slammed Palin, with two years as governor, for being too inexperienced for VP, but touted Obama with three years as senator as potentially the best president ever. Wonder why people are dropping their subscriptions or switching to Fox News?
Get a clue. I didn't vote for Bush in 2000, but the media and Kerry drove me to his camp in 2004.
I'm tired of being told that out of "tolerance for other cultures" we must let Saudi Arabia use our oil money to fund mosques and madrassa Islamic schools to preach hate in America, while no American group is allowed to fund a church, synagogue, or religious school in Saudi Arabia to teach love and tolerance.
I'm tired of being told I must lower my living standard to fight global warming, which no one is allowed to debate. My wife and I live in a two-bedroom apartment and carpool together five miles to our jobs. We also own a three-bedroom condo where our daughter and granddaughter live. Our carbon footprint is about 5% of Al Gore's, and if you're greener than Gore, you're green enough.
I'm tired of being told that drug addicts have a disease, and I must help support and treat them, and pay for the damage they do. Did a giant germ rush out of a dark alley, grab them, and stuff white powder up their noses while they tried to fight it off? I don't think Gay people choose to be Gay, but I damn sure think druggies chose to take drugs. And I'm tired of harassment from cool people treating me like a freak when I tell them I never tried marijuana.
I'm tired of illegal aliens being called "undocumented workers," especially the ones who aren't working, but are living on welfare or crime. What's next? Calling drug dealers, Undocumented Pharmacists"? And, no, I'm not against Hispanics. Most of them are Catholic, and it's been a few hundred years since Catholics wanted to kill me for my religion. I'm willing to fast track for citizenship any Hispanic person, who can speak English, doesn't have a criminal record and who is self-supporting without family on welfare, or who serves honorably for three years in our military... Those are the citizens we need.
I'm tired of latte liberals and journalists, who would never wear the uniform of the Republic themselves, or let their entitlement-handicapped kids near a recruiting station, trashing our military. They and their kids can sit at home, never having to make split-second decisions under life and death circumstances, and bad mouth better people then themselves. Do bad things happen in war? You bet. Do our troops sometimes misbehave? Sure. Does this compare with the atrocities that were the policy of our enemies for the last fifty years-and still are? Not even close.
So here's the deal:
I'll let myself be subjected to all the humiliation and abuse that was heaped on terrorists at Abu Ghraib or Gitmo, and the critics can let themselves be subject to captivity by the Muslims who tortured and beheaded Daniel Pearl in Pakistan, or the Muslims who tortured and murdered Marine Lt. Col. William Higgins in Lebanon, or the Muslims who ran the blood-spattered Al Qaeda torture rooms our troops found in Iraq, or the Muslims who cut off the heads of schoolgirls in Indonesia, because the girls were Christian. Then we'll compare notes. British and American soldiers are the only troops in history that civilians came to for help and handouts, instead of hiding from in fear.
I'm tired of people telling me that their party has a corner on virtue and the other party has a corner on corruption. Read the papers-bums are bipartisan. And I'm tired of people telling me we need bipartisanship. I live in Illinois, where the " Illinois Combine" of Democrats and Republicans has worked together harmoniously to loot the public for years. And I notice that the tax cheats in Obama's cabinet are bipartisan as well.
I'm tired of hearing wealthy athletes, entertainers, and politicians of both parties talking about innocent mistakes, stupid mistakes or youthful mistakes, when we all know they think their only mistake was getting caught. I'm tired of people with a sense of entitlement, rich or poor. Speaking of poor, I'm tired of hearing people with air-conditioned homes, color TVs and two cars called poor. The majority of Americans didn't have that in 1970, but we didn't know we were "poor." The poverty pimps have to keep changing the definition of poor to keep the dollars flowing.
I'm real tired of people who don't take responsibility for their lives and actions. I'm tired of hearing them blame the government, or discrimination, or big-whatever for their problems.
Yes, I'm damn tired.. But I'm also glad to be 63. Because, mostly, I'm not going to get to see the world these people are making. I'm just sorry for my granddaughter.
Robert A. Hall is a Marine Vietnam veteran who served five terms in the Massachusetts State Senate.
Actually my friend, I agree with most what he says. I am sick and tired of politicians, athletes, welfare recipients, illegal immigrants, etc. believing they are entitled to what others have. However, I don't believe that Obama has gotten off scot free from criticism, nor do I believe that Georgw W wasn't deserving of much that he received.
However, I believe that this country deserves more respect than we receive. While we are far from perfect (what the conservative right seems to believe) we are SO MUCH BETTER than most of the rest of the world (what the liberal left seems to believe). I think it is high time for a new political party, one whose focus is on America and not the preservation of their special perks. I wish they would out (not defend) people like Sarah Palin, Michael Moore, and ACORN and embrace people who have the courage to stand up for their principles like Joe Lieberman and Susan Collins.
I believe that taxes should be kept as low as possible and government should be as close to the people as possible. That does not mean (as many conservative Republicans now proclaim) that taxes can be reduced while we increase spending for their pet projects, nor does it mean that taxes should be raised (as many liberal Democrats are demanding) so we can fund all kinds of projects that the government should not be involved in. At one time, the economic mantra of the Republican Party was balanced budgets, not lower taxes and conservatives were highly critical of Democratic Presidents who expressed the desire for the US to nation-build.
I long for Democrats like Scoop Jackson and Republicans like Everitt Dirksen who recognized the value of working together to solve this country's problems, not Nancy Pelosi or Joe Wilson.
I'm sorry if I disappointed you by not disagreeing with the frustration expressed by veteran Massachusetts State Senator Robert Hall. No, I feel it too.
Wednesday, September 2, 2009
I'm Convinced: Let's Privatize All Health and Safety Professionals
You did it - yes, all of you strong-willed conservatives who refused to negotiate with those who wanted to convert any part of our health care system to a socialist-style Government run operation, a/k/a "The Public Option". In fact, I don't know what I could have been thinking. There had to be something in the kool-aid to make a life-long Republican believe that any kind of Government participation in our health care system might be good for the country.
Now that you have convinced me and I have seen the light, I intend to become the next Cindy Sheehan (or Ron Paul) and extend this revelation to the rest of our health and public safety professionals. I can't find anything in our Constitution that gives the Government the right to control these professions. I'm sure it must have been those liberal Supreme Court Justices who "interpreted " the Constitution to include firemen, policemen, and even our milita as under their jurisdiction. No one should feel safe with the same government that runs our post office and social security system also running our military. I would much rather have these professionals under the control of our profit driven capitalistic system. In fact, you are probably one step ahead of me in projecting who would be the best organization to run our military, fire, and police departments.
Actually, Halliburton was my second choice. No, the number one candidate is Blackwater. They already have the experience of cleaning up the streets (and the bodies) while protecting decent folks like you and me. (Well not exactly you and me, but well connected captains of Corporate America, like the owners of the insurance companies, pharmaceuticals, and HMOs.).
To those who believe that police and fire protection are an inherent right, let me remind you that those are treasonous words to those of us who believe in the land of the free and the home of the brave. I'm sure that you must have been secretly born in one of those Communist countries, or worse yet, one of your relatives must have come from a country who tried to tax us without proper representation.
I propose that anyone who has any relative who was born in England, France, or Spain must be a traitor and should not be permitted to hold any kind of public office. We should direct the Attorney General to investigate the birth certificates of any citizen who does not agree with us. That is what George Washington would have wanted us to do.
I am amazed that I have to do this, but I have received nearly a dozen E-mails from people who thought the column was serious. HELLO people this is SATIRE. Do you not know who Blackwater is?
P.S. (Any similarity between this column and Art Buchwald's columns must be because of our first names).
Now that you have convinced me and I have seen the light, I intend to become the next Cindy Sheehan (or Ron Paul) and extend this revelation to the rest of our health and public safety professionals. I can't find anything in our Constitution that gives the Government the right to control these professions. I'm sure it must have been those liberal Supreme Court Justices who "interpreted " the Constitution to include firemen, policemen, and even our milita as under their jurisdiction. No one should feel safe with the same government that runs our post office and social security system also running our military. I would much rather have these professionals under the control of our profit driven capitalistic system. In fact, you are probably one step ahead of me in projecting who would be the best organization to run our military, fire, and police departments.
Actually, Halliburton was my second choice. No, the number one candidate is Blackwater. They already have the experience of cleaning up the streets (and the bodies) while protecting decent folks like you and me. (Well not exactly you and me, but well connected captains of Corporate America, like the owners of the insurance companies, pharmaceuticals, and HMOs.).
To those who believe that police and fire protection are an inherent right, let me remind you that those are treasonous words to those of us who believe in the land of the free and the home of the brave. I'm sure that you must have been secretly born in one of those Communist countries, or worse yet, one of your relatives must have come from a country who tried to tax us without proper representation.
I propose that anyone who has any relative who was born in England, France, or Spain must be a traitor and should not be permitted to hold any kind of public office. We should direct the Attorney General to investigate the birth certificates of any citizen who does not agree with us. That is what George Washington would have wanted us to do.
I am amazed that I have to do this, but I have received nearly a dozen E-mails from people who thought the column was serious. HELLO people this is SATIRE. Do you not know who Blackwater is?
P.S. (Any similarity between this column and Art Buchwald's columns must be because of our first names).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
