Politics

Instead of calling it the Tea Party movement, thus inviting the usual sniggering of immature leftists about teabagging, I suggest a new name…

… the Reagan Party.

It makes sense for two reasons. First, the goal is a return to the principles of government both espoused and practiced by the great man. Second, I defy the left to mock the most loved President in recent history. Oh, they’ll take potshots. But that’s all they’ll dare to take.

What do you think?

Following up on yesterday’s post. Thanks to a true brother Dan Collins for first pointing me in the story’s direction; read his take on the matter. And watch/listen to the interview with Rep. Michele Bachmann, either here at GAC, Dan’s most excellent Piece Of Work In Progress blog or its original location at Breitbart.tv.

A point and an observation on Rep. Bachmann’s comments, neither of which can be overemphasized. First, the point. The breathtaking scope of sheer arrogance demonstrated in Rep. Barney Frank’s bill exemplifies the modern liberal mindset permeating Washington. This mindset believes it alone is good, private enterprise is evil and the people — all people — must be controlled by government rather than government being controlled by the people. It is naked, insatiable lust for power; the pride of man that prior to its inevitable fall is determined to destroy the fundamentals of our economy and our freedom to pursue a better life by forcibly placing the elements of self-improvement out of reach. It is evil, an evil that must be opposed with all available methods. Nothing less will suffice.

That said, the observation. There is no rancor in Rep. Bachmann’s message. No personal attacks against Rep. Frank, Nancy Pelosi or Barack Obama. None of the childish name calling that far too often passes for political debate. Instead, while appealing to heart and mind Rep. Bachmann’s message focuses on ideology. There is no mistaking the fervor of her call; no ambiguity in her thought process. There also is no animosity directed at individuals.

I cannot speak for Rep. Bachmann, although I know we share a common bond through faith in Christ. However, perhaps she views such matters in a fashion similar to my own.

I’m too tired to hate.

I’m also quite capable of being silly and naïve.

In fact, I am so silly and naïve I actually take Jesus at His Word. That translates into my believing that no one is outside the reach of His love. No one can be written off as beyond hope. Christ knows who does and doesn’t belong to Him. He knows who in the future will accept or reject Him. We don’t. And so we must press on.

I am so silly and naïve I actually work off of the notion that the redemptive power of coming to know and accept Jesus as Lord and Savior does far more than create another entry in the book of life. It also entails transformation of the mind. Renewal, as Paul put it.

I am so silly and naïve I genuinely see even the most corrupt, punch-drunk with power and narcissistic politician as an individual capable of being turned around. In the face of those pursuing evil, ruinous plans I cling to the quiet smile, one based in the unshakable knowledge that Christ will triumph no matter what the schemes of man attempt to implement. Fight for what is right and good? Always. Yet always with the open hand and the words of the prophet Isaiah ever ready: come, let us reason together.

And as noted, I’m too tired to hate. Too much transpiring in my life to devote the necessary energy. Far better to seek peace in Christ and live there.

Oppose the evil. But never at the expense of following Jesus.

A lengthy but vital interview with Representative Michele Bachmann conducted earlier today.

Some thoughts tomorrow.

[video http://www.diecast-dude.com/gac/TheBCastInterviewWithRepMicheleBachmann324.flv nolink]

Ofttimes in Scripture there are what on the surface appear to be contradictions yet in fact are nothing of the kind. Rather, they are illustrations of both sides in areas where one cannot live solely in one place.

For example, in Galatians Paul writes:

Carry each other’s burdens, and in this way you will fulfill the law of Christ. If anyone thinks he is something when he is nothing, he deceives himself. Each one should test his own actions. Then he can take pride in himself, without comparing himself to somebody else, for each one should carry his own load.

So which is it? Carry each others burdens or carry your own load?

The answer, to put it simply, is yes. You do both, helping others while pulling your own weight. The person who spends their entire time helping others without tending to their own walk with Christ and life responsibilities is headed straight to the burnout pile. Doesn’t matter if you’re effectively preaching and teaching the Word if you treat your wife like part of the furniture. Or for that matter yourself.

Another area where this comes into play is in how we should interact with each other. At the beginning, the church was very much a communal movement. Okay, good. But was this a mandate on how all believers should act? No. The command to share and directly minister to others is often emphasized throughout the whole of the New Testament. However, nowhere along the line is owning personal property prohibited. Also, it bears mention that this mandate to care for one another physically as well as spiritually is one aimed solely at the believer. There is no “take care of only other believers” thought; in fact, the opposite is true. It is up to the individual believer to put this into place by their own actions.

Also, woven throughout Scripture is the directive of personal responsibility. The believer is commanded to do the work necessary to earn their keep and not be lazy. While there is no shame in asking for help, there is a problem when someone expects others to provide for them when said individual has the capability to do so.

Shall we lateral this over to the political realm?

One of the fundamental building blocks of a capitalistic society is the individual bearing responsibility for themselves coupled with the enablement of the individual to succeed. In such an environment, should they fail it’s up to the individual to rectify the situation. While the government’s preferred role is that of protector, defending the individual against those who would deprive them of their ability to succeed via unfair or blatantly evil business practices, it is not a guarantor of success. Nor can it be without destroying capitalism, instead adopting an at best statist and at worst socialist role in the lives of the people.

Although it can be said there is no issue with the government acting as a charitable entity to a degree, given the routine inefficiency of its efforts in this area one begins to wonder whether said efforts are worth the tremendous expenditure incurred by such efforts. There is also the clear danger of such efforts becoming aggressively proactive, dictating to the people how they should conduct their personal affairs rather than offering assistance for those unable to presently care for themselves.

Returning to the theme of faith, the Christian life is the act of empowering an individual to serve God and man. Granted, empowerment is usually thought of in terms of enabling the individual to do as they please. However, as they grow in their knowledge of Christ the believer comes to realize that true empowerment comes through embracing servanthood. Again, a seeming contradiction; yet in fact appearing to be so only to those who have no understanding of Jesus and His teachings.

Any government is, to put it mildly, a poor substitute for walking with Christ. It can adopt the outward trappings and mechanisms of individual responsibility along with charitable outreach all it wishes, but lacking the foundation of servitude to God it can do no better than assuming the forms of these things.

More later.

I haven’t written much about politics lately for various reasons: too busy with other projects, a general feeling that anything I’d say on the subject would fall into the same category as a country music songwriter penning an ode to drinkin’, dancin’ and honky-tonkin’. The subject’s already been covered. Nevertheless, thought I’d toss in my thoughts on healthcare.

Last month, in my Examiner column I posed this question: what would Jesus do about healthcare reform? In it I outlined my belief that Christ’s directives are a command to take care of each other’s needs as much as we can, and to adopt His full view of health being not only a matter of physical well-being but also spiritual wholeness through believing in Him. Not that taking care of the body is unimportant; it is His temple, created in His image. However, if your soul is diseased whether you’re physically well is the least of your problems.

With the above in mind, back to the current debate. Summarized, it goes thusly:

“We need universal healthcare!”

“We can’t afford it and we don’t want the government running it!”

“Okay, we’ll make those evil insurance companies pay for it.”

Which is where matters currently stand.

The problems with the originally proposed government-run healthcare are numerous. At its core is the belief is healthcare is a fundamental right of the people, and as such ought to be provided for by the government using the monies supplied by the people via taxes for funding. This belief is vehemently objected to by several groups:

– Strict constitutionalists, who find no such right stated or implied in the Constitution.
– Libertarians, whose base philosophy is that the government should have minimal participation in the people’s lives.
– On the pragmatic side, those none too keen on high taxes who point out the tremendous cost of such a proposal would necessitate either a dramatic tax increase or an equally dramatic rise in the national debt which is already at a record high.
– Finally, along libertarian lines of thought comes the expressed opinion that given the government’s demonstrated ineptitude to manage social programs, with Social Security and Medicare both stumbling toward bankruptcy, the last thing anyone needs is  another Washington-run program, particularly one with such dramatic personal impact on everyone.

There is also more than a bit of the class warfare issue at play. The notion that taxpayers, especially those carrying the cost of their health insurance, should pay for those who either can’t or won’t pay for their healthcare is understandably anathema to many. Even the most generous of individuals prefers selecting who they gift. The government forcibly taking over this role does not sit well. On the flip side, you have those who believe that “the man” is holding them down, therefore “the man” should pay for such things as, say, healthcare.

There is also the matter of what care will and will not be provided by a government-run system. This is where the debate becomes even more heated. Opponents to the proposal are of the firm opinion that government-provided healthcare means government-run and managed healthcare, a system under which those overseeing the program and not physicians would have the final say on who gets how much care and the nature of said care. Proponents of government-run healthcare insist this is nonsense and the various proposals floating around Washington are nothing more than efforts to provide coverage for those currently unable to afford it. None of the current privately offered plans or the companies providing same would be affected. Opponents say this is nonsense, as should it be offered the public option will via defection to same inevitably destroy the current health insurance providers. And so it goes. There is little if any middle ground in this debate.

Naturally, I propose one.

Although health insurance provider bashing is quite the popular hobby, as it provides a convenient villain against which government can portray itself as the protector of people, it is both misguided and futile. No, “they” are not evil. Neither do “they” have an unlimited supply of cash with which all can be fully covered. Thinking along these lines is the same faulty reasoning that led to today’s economic miseries, brought on when years of forcing banks and financial lending institutions to offer home loans to those incapable of paying for them inevitably led to the housing market collapse following shortly thereafter by the collapse of banks and financial institutions, crushed into bankruptcy by the weight of defaulted loans and corresponding ownership of property which could not be resold at even a fraction of its price just six months prior.

Back to the proposed solution. It’s built on the government treating health insurance in the same manner it treats property casualty insurance (auto, home, etc). Which is a field I have at least some familiarity.

A property casualty insurance provider has two primary fallbacks for when disaster strikes: reinsurance and government provided coverage for extreme catastrophes. Reinsurance is sold by assorted private companies. In essence it’s insurance for an insurance provider. The provider pays the reinsurer X amount in return for a guarantee that should a major disaster strike involving multiple major claims, the reinsurer will cover a large percentage of the losses. Government provided, or more accurately funded, coverage is for major risks no private company could hope to afford — for example, hurricane coverage in Florida. In this case the government either provides the coverage or acts as a reinsurer for providers.

Now, one of the fundamental differences between health insurance and property casualty insurance is that the former is far, far more likely to be called on than the latter. You can buy an auto insurance policy at sixteen and have never used it by the time you’re sixty-six by never being in an accident. Not going to the doctor ever? Not nearly as likely.

Also, consider this. Few targets in this society are easier to lob live ammo against than corporate profits. Never mind that without said profits the companies would cease to exist, thus rendering their employees — in many cases that’s you and me, folks — unemployed. In the case of an insurance provider, it is necessary for the company to be sufficiently profitable to the point where if every single policyholder filed a claim tomorrow for the maximum amount of their coverage the company could pay every single claim without going under.

Now, take this to healthcare. Would it not be far better for the government, rather than assorted members trying to score brownie points with their constituents by playing the blame big business game, actually work with same for the benefit of all? Sure, it’s not nearly as much fun as grabbing your share of soundbytes. But how about actually leading for once instead of striking a pose?

Here’s how.

Make the government’s sole involvement in healthcare being a reinsurer. The health insurance providers pay X amount a year. In return, the government covers the cost of catastrophic care when the bills any given individual incurs exceeds the limits on their healthcare.

Also, go with the suggestion that every individual be required to buy health insurance. No exceptions, no excuses. If you want to set up government assistance for the disadvantaged, fine. Humanitarian concern cannot be neglected. However, write into any such agreement the mandate that the individual be required to pay back the assistance when able to do so. The era of handing out endless checks because you’re poor must be abandoned forever. Personal responsibility must become the action item.

Tighten regulatory control of health insurance providers, not to the point of forcing them out of business but rather insuring fair business practices. After all, if the government is the reinsurer, the “we can’t afford to cover this person or that health problem” immediately flies out the window.

Finally, could both sides cut the crap? Seriously. Start acting like adults. Stop striking poses. If you can’t, then STFU and step aside. Work out a common sense solution such as what is proposed here.

And start being honest. Things cost money. Stop borrowing us into unpayable debt to China. Stop pretending we can simply print money and everything’s good. Stop pretending the rich and/or corporations could pay for it all if they wanted to. They can’t. So can the rhetoric and get real with the math.

That’s pretty much all I have to say on the subject.