Marriage or Civil Union

After reading a post title “Gay and Lesbian marriage should be legalized in all fifty states”, something about the word legalized implied a congressional decision. This debate is not going to go away. I find it interesting that on one hand, some who are opposed to government regulating morality are also demanding that government make a decision regarding what can be can be categorized as a moral issue.

Historically we have accepted the definition of marriage as a union between a man and woman. One can search any number of reference books such as a dictionary and find definitions supporting this historical view. But today there seems to be a growing demand to revisit the meaning of marriage.

As a created being we have free will. If two individuals desire a union outside the traditional definition of marriage, I don’t agree, but so be it; just don’t call it marriage. Create a new term for this civil union, with all rights of a trustee or beneficiary. Why is there a push to change my view, opinion, or definition of what marriage means?

I am amazed at the expectation people have for others to change their views. For example in some environments you are not allowed to say Christmas; it’s Xmas or Happy Holidays. I don’t have a problem if you want to have Xmas; just find another time and define what it means; don’t expect me to change my view of Christmas.

The author of the post stated it’s all about love. We love our children, and our pets, but I don’t think anyone is pushing for legislation that will allow an individual to unite with either and call it marriage.

Reply

Forward

Out of Focus and Touch or Out of Reach?

A November 18, 2009 editorial, “Hungry in the United States”, posted in The New York Times, raised a few questions for me. Has the responsibilities of our government to its citizen changed? Has Congress lost focus; is it out of touch with the needs of the people? Or perhaps the question is: have our national issues grown beyond an executive resolution? If Congress is the factory where America takes its problems to, the output or product is indicating something is broke.

It is amazing to see the factory focused on producing a bailout product for big businesses when a study conducted inside the factory by the Department of Agriculture shows a record number of Americans struggling with getting sufficient food. This is nothing new to the factory worker. Before economists identified the beginning of the recession, two-thirds of families with children did not receive adequate nutrition. It interesting to see the most powerful country in the world going broke and its children going hungry. What’s even more interesting, whether you agree or disagree, is that the factory has produced a plan to address its financial woes but not to address the food insecurities of its people.

The workers, within the Congressional factory, seem to be out of touch with the needs of those whom they are supposed to be producing a product for. The new and improved Health Care product that millions need and are waiting on is being held up on an option that will benefit all. All with the exception of the competing private businesses whose voice can be heard by those working inside the factory over the cry of its citizen in need.

The rise in the number of people, according to factory data, who lack access to adequate nutrition rose to 49 million in 2008, raising the banner that every American is going to need some form of health care. Skipped meals and cheap food with low to no nutritional value are contributors to poor health. Are the factory workers so out of touch they can’t see the urgency to pass a health care bill with a public option, freeing up the factory to work on other products such as hunger in Americans? President Obama has made a commitment to wipe our child hunger by 2015; I hope we are not still bailing out and reforming.

Are our issues beyond the factory’s ability? Will the factory be able to retool itself in time to efficiently and effectively produce a product that is right for all America? Or will we sell out to the highest bidder?

Another look at Health Care

I recently read a blog titled “Health Care Legislation” posted by S. Williams at Proud to be an American. I found the post to be quite interesting. It was challenging to tell from the author’s opening sentences whether or not the author had a definitive opinion regarding the proposed health care reform legislation. The author supported this position of ambiguity by pointing out the various variables to consider and in his mind there were still too many unanswered questions.

The post conveyed a stronger concern for the private insurance companies and employers than for the millions of American who have no hope of receiving and paying for quality health care. I’m sorry, but I have no empathy for the insurance companies that have for years made a hefty profit by draining the pocket of American families, leaving them still ill and in poverty.

While there was some indecisiveness in the author’s view, he did take a strong position regarding the issues of fining Americans who don’t purchase coverage. To this though I would like to know how the author would feel if they were involved in an auto accident with a motorist who did not have government required auto insurance. Levying fines for the uninsured, which we have been doing for years, worked out favorably for all.

In closing, the author appears to lean toward limited government involvement and states that “government should mind their own business.” That’s an interesting statement, considering that government is supposed to be in place to manage the issues of the people they have been elected to serve. I strongly support the government effort to reform our Health Care System.

The Real Debate

Let’s talk about the real debate on health care. While members of our executive branches of government debate over health care reform, and whether to include a public option with or without the right of states to opt out, millions of voting Americans are having a real debate. They are debating whether to pay the rent or pay for the insulin to control their diabetes. They are debating how they will afford food for the month since this month’s unemployment check had to be used for the nebulizer so the baby with asthma could breath. Here in America the real debate on health care includes making a decision on how many pain killers you can take and still be productive and not lose your job, because the knee replacement is not covered by the company insurance; it was a preexisting condition.

The public option for many American looks quite different than those being debated behind the walls of Congress today. The public option Congress is debating appears to be fueled by what is in the best interest of the insurance companies rather than what in the best for the general public. Learning brail should not be the only option for the man who is suffering with glaucoma. Leg braces and a walker should not be the only option for a child struck by the car of a drunk driver.

I believe that health care reform should include a public option and exclude any triggers or op-out provision. I believe that every American should have some equitable provision to quality health care. At what point will those elected by the public, to serve the public, stop debating and act in the best interest of the public?

The public option as described by Jacob Hacker, a professor of political science at Yale University, appears to meet the needs of the majority. Hacker says it is a plan that would be modeled after the Medicare program that Americans are familiar with and like. It would be available to those Americans who don't have good coverage from their employer. It would also be available to workers who work in the smallest firms. And it would be made available through some kind of new insurance-purchasing exchange, through which people could get access to both private health insurance plans and this new public plan. He goes on the state that the benefit of the plan would be to give individuals a broader choice of doctors and over time it would bring down the cost of private insurers.



If this is the case what is Congress debating? Are they debating politic power and money for a few, in lieu of a health plan for all? Why does this have to be an Obama plan, or a Democratic plan, or a Republican plan? Shouldn’t it just be a plan to make health care more affordable for everyone?

State’s Option On Public Option

Jane Hamsher posts her concerns regarding states having the authority to decided their participation in the public option, stating that this was an immoral and unnecessary political compromise. Then Jane yielded her blog comments to Rikyrah, a blogger whose words were much stronger. Rikyrah states “I feel as others on ‘the left of the left’ – this is utter BULLSHIT.” She went on to make her point that putting the public option component of the healthcare plan in the states’ hands would basically reestablish the boundaries of the Civil War. In her mind she believes that a majority of the states that would opt-out would be states with the largest improvised segments of African Americans. Rikyrah compares the opt-out option compromise to the creation of social security under Franklin Roosevelt, pointing out it took nearly a generation for Blacks in this country to see some form of equitable benefits from the social security system. I don’t think Rikyrah had a specific or targeted audience. Her comments seem to be open for all who would take the time to read her work. I for one believe she raises a point that main stream media will not touch. Her message was strong and clear and although she makes some historical comparison, there were little to no information supporting her view. It is interesting in comparing a blog to an editorial in a major news paper. Blogs are more of an unfiltered personal view or opinion. I not sure if you receive a truer perspective of an issues, but you certainly get a better feel for the emotional energy and passion for the subject being discussed.

Scare-Mongering

The New York Times posted an editorial in its September 27, 2009 edition titled “Medicare Scar -Mongering” (click here) that addressed the hypocrisy and rhetoric of the Republican leadership, which has thirty percent of the general public believing that the Medicare Program and it participants would be worse off under the Democrats’ plan for health care reform. It is obvious the author wanted the elderly Medicare participants to get the truth about the proposed health plan. While this group was one primary target, a message was sent to both parties. The author called the Republican leaders out for creating fear by twisting the truth and spreading false information. The editorial also challenged the Democrats to step it up and mount a strategic message inclusive of the true benefits that their proposed health care plan will have for Medicare participants. The editorial pointed out benefits like improved coverage for drugs, waved deductibles for some preventive care and expanded eligibility as examples of improvement Medicare participants could expect to see in the Democrats’ plan.

The author supported his argument of Republican deception by pointing out, “this is the same party that in the past tried to pare back Medicare and has repeatedly denounced the kind of single-payer system that is at the heart of Medicare and its popularity.” The editorialist continued to voice his frustration with the Republican Party posturing as wolves in sheep’s clothing by bringing to the reader’s attention that over the years Congress has allowed overpayment in services of enrolled Medicare participants to subsidize private plans. I agree with the position presented in this editorial and I feel the data include in the editorial, along with pointing out the vein the Republican leadership has their IV in, and makes a strong and compelling argument that they have sounded a false alarm.

Ugliness Is Not New

In Mike Lux's article “Calhoun Conservatism Raises Its Ugly Head” (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mike-lux/calhoun-conservatism-rais_b_283480.html) he points out that what we are seeing today in the behavior and attitudes of modern conservatives, like the outburst from Congressman Joe Wilson in nothing new. Lux rolls the clock back on politics in America and takes his readers back in time to 1780 where men like John C. Calhoun, of South Carolina, debated the state rights over the federal government.
Calhoun argued that states should have the right to come and go into and out of the Union as they pleased. Calhoun also debated states rights to nullify any laws with which they disagreed. This well known Congress man from South Carolina was violently opposed to the concept of democracy and augured that civil liberties should be at the discretion of the states and was ready to start a Civil War to defend his position.
I would recommend the class read this article. It follows and reinforces key learning objectives of the course. The article reminds us that the outburst by Joe Wilson was not the worst thing that a congressman from South Carolina has done on the floor of the Senate. This article left me wandering - are we the United, States of America?

Read the article here.