I saw on the news last night that the Democrats are apologizing after Ann Romney complained that their recent ad making fun of Romney's dress horse that he wrote off on his taxes was in poor taste because riding that horse is part of her therapy for her multiple sclerosis. Speaking of people being insensitive...
I worked at a camp for children with disabilities for five years or so. We had several kids with MS, muscular distrophy, and a myriad of other disabilities. Trust me I know about people not being sensitive to people's conditions. But that's not what they were poking fun of Ann, in fact you're not even mentioned in the ad.
Austin, a favorite camper of mine, has MS so bad he's confined to a wheelchair. He, like the vast majority of our campers, comes from a rural area, from a middle to lower class family. His family had a hard time paying for his electric wheelchair, but wouldn't have had such a hard time getting it under "Obamacare", since their insurance wouldn't have precluded their purchase due to a pre-existing condition, I'm sure. Pretty sure his family broke into their retirement funds for most of his care and treatments. He was only able to come to camp at all - his favorite two weeks of every year - because generous local Rotary Club members donated to our camp so that he could attend for free.
My point is, most people with MS can't afford dressage therapy to begin with! If you want to know what insensitivity to people's needs and lifestyles is, try repealing Obamacare - which was based off of Mitt's own Massachusetts plan in the first place. Try having all the money in the world, gained by outsourcing jobs to India and spending it on a precious show horse that you didn't even need to pay taxes on, and then using that money to buy an election with the explicit intention of denying someone with muscular sclerosis access to coverage. THAT'S insensitive. Pull your head out of your ass!
--I mean, horse!
* * *
While I'm on the topic, let me point out to anyone who's never thought this through, but people in the health care and insurance industry have been complaining for years that "the reason costs are so high is because of uninsured people taking advantage of health care services." That's from their own mouths. Well, the comprehensive health care plan was addressing that, and I don't see how you could complain about it, considering it only affects you positively, and it's exactly what you asked for.
The idea was for the government to provide a baseline, unimpressive, but all-bases-covered, additional public health care plan option. We're talking COBRA level here, bare bones.
If you have health care coverage that you like - that is to say, you have a job and it has benefits at all - then don't take the government option. You wouldn't anyway. So how does this affect you, self-righteous employed person?
If you are poor and do not have health coverage - for example, you are an entry level burger flipper, or a part-time custodian, because that's the only job left that you qualify for, because you don't have affluent parents so you couldn't afford an education, and this job does not provide health insurance - then you are going to have to take that government option or face the tax penalty. In case you missed the implication, "poor people" does not mean "unemployed", poor people still have jobs, they're just crappy ones that don't afford them a living wage. This may be a surprise to you.
Let me run that by you again: Your choices as a poor person are to take the public option, or pay a tax penalty.
If you take the public option, should you need to go to the hospital for some reason, the insurance that you pay for will help cover that bill. Fewer uninsured people going to the hospital means lower hospital bills and insurance for everyone! Right, health care and insurance providers? Isn't that what you said would happen? Isn't that your excuse for being greedy bast--ahem.
If you, the poor person, instead opt not to take any insurance, you'll have to pay the tax penalty. Now let me remind the GOP fans out there, that you also love to complain about how the poor actually get tax refunds - for shame! Well, that tax penalty, that you love to bitch about that wouldn't even apply to you because you wouldn't even be in this position I'm describing right now in a million years, happens to do nothing but cut into that tax refund they'd be getting. Shouldn't you be happy about this, republicans? That the poor are receiving "less free money" because they didn't take the government option? Like where in the hell do you get off being outraged about this "mandate"? It doesn't even affect you, and does actually hurt poor people, so that should absolutely thrill you.
Last but not least, let me explain how a tax penalty actually works. If you're entirely homeless and unemployed and you have to go to the hospital, yes, it costs everyone more insurance premiums to care for you (in theory, so the industry tells us). Obviously you didn't take the government public option, so you would be subject to the tax penalty "mandate"... if you paid federal taxes in the first place. But seeing as how you didn't have an income, there are no taxes to take. So anyone harping on the "mandate" being unfair to poor people who couldn't afford it is spewing complete bull and has no idea what they're talking about.
Then of course there's pre-existing conditions benefits and what not, basically it's good for everyone. EVERYONE. The fact is, 1%ers like Rick Scott only want you to hate Obamacare because it means lower costs and better competition causes his insurance company that he owns to be unable to afford to pay him 500 times your salary, and he'll need to settle for 450 times your salary, and that make widdle Wick cwy.
Friday, July 20, 2012
Friday, July 13, 2012
Fun Political Thought Experiment
I'll throw it out here now: I'm a devout Roman Catholic. I've read and studied and questioned my faith my entire life, and I've chosen this path through reason and rational thought, and even challenged myself to live as an atheist for a few months to see if it could apply and I just couldn't do it. I know it's the truth, for me, and part of demonstrating my faith and love entails being open to hearing and trying on other viewpoints and being respectful to those that hold them even if I disagree. Rising above the conflict with cool heads promotes real progress between varied peoples.
One thing I find funny though, and am a bit at odds with in the Catholic community, is that many priests and practitioners will try to influence people to vote a certain way. I am not knocking the church itself, because the Popes have made it very clear that they do not influence state politics anywhere in the world, they just inform moral opinion, which of course people use to discern their votes. There's a significant difference there, and I like that and respect the church for it... at the international level. However, once you get down to the locality of bishops and below, some of those clergy have been known to take it upon themselves to explicitly say "Vote against Amendment #34" or whatever, which to me is wrong. The church at the higher levels absolutely believes in separation of church vs. state, and even Jesus told us to give to Caesar what is Caesar's.
I think what people forget to consider in that separation is the role of each. Yes, the church is doing its role by informing our moral opinions. But that's also because those of us who hear the church's teaching are more often than not, part of the church. We fall under its jurisdiction, which is wonderful in building community across the country and around the world. The voice and law of Catholicism reaches us across seas and domains of leadership, it affects the man in the desert, and the woman on the island, and the children in the snow. As the Universal church, its reach is everywhere. That's really cool. And it can inform our morality everywhere. Cool, cool. And the beauty of freedom of religion, which is law nearly everywhere now, is that we choose to fall under the reach of the church no matter where we are geographically. That's amazing.
But the state's jurisdiction is drawn in the dirt. Atheists, Protestants, Buddhists, and Catholics, are all Americans, and for the most part, it's hard for us to change that fact. And the laws we vote into action affect all of us, often times against our will, within that jurisdiction. That's why we're trying democracy, so that at least most of us had a voice. Granted, part of authority, even like the church's, is that they have to make laws that not everyone agrees with, that's just a fact of life on earth. But thanks to the freedom of religion, if you disagree with the Catholic church, well then leave it! Become an Episcopalian or whatever works for you, no one's stopping you! Just change your mind, and you're out of their reach. But to escape the jurisdiction of the law of the state, you need to change your geography. That's way easier said than done.
Yeah, as Catholics we should totally let our morality and the church inform our opinions on our vote, but this concept is completely lost on a lot of people that how you vote - even if it's the right thing - does have a real affect on your neighbors who disagree with you. This can overlap with lots of other topics too like evangelization; I personally believe you can catch more flies with honey, and beating people over the head with your faith doesn't convert them. I also believe you can't force someone to love you because at that point you've broken the definition of love, which should be freely chosen, ergo free will was given to us by God, but that's digressing. My point is, no one in this country wants to vote thinking about their fellow man. They want their opinion to win in politics, rather than working as a team. They forget that they are as much American as they are Catholics.
I bring this up because after reading about Catholic Social Teaching and Natural Family Planning, I realized that politically, I am pretty moderate in the United States political theater (let's be honest, that's what it is), because I fall on both camps, yet really my Catholic background determines my "side" of every issue we vote on. I'm socially conservative, but fiscally liberal, and I think that suits Catholic teaching, but surprisingly does not suit the way certain priests have told me to vote.
It's true, I'm hardcore Catholic, by reasoned choice. I'm very pro-life, vehemently against both abortion and contraception. I'm in favor of charity work, making sure people are rightfully paid a living wage, enough to raise their family on and pay for a house, but not a lavish lifestyle. I believe marriage is a special sacrament between a man and a woman and they symbolize a deeper love that the Father has for all humans on earth because whether they agree to it or not, they are His children. I believe in forgiveness, love, and consideration of your neighbor. These are all informed by my Catholic morals, learned through years of philosophy within the church.
But I'm also an American, and not by choice, though I have a little pride in my position. I believe in freedom, democracy, concern for fellow man, justice, and the like. And when I consider all the things I just said about separation of church and state, and realizing how my actions affect those in my dual jurisdictions that I find myself in, I actually want to make some compromises. I think it's wrong to make abortion and contraception illegal across the board. I think they're abominations to human life, but the fact is not everyone in my state agrees with me, and those that disagree will take a lot of risks to their health and harm others on the way if they resorted to illegal methods to achieve their goals. I think it's wrong to deny gay couples the right to "be married" under the law of the state, because if one of them goes to the hospital, or dies and has to bequeath their belongings, that person, as a person who does love as Jesus loves in some ways, is best served being able to receive the company of their companion, and leave their legacy to that companion. That companion knows them best and is in the best position to help that person. Make no mistake, I see the "marriage" as a hollow, pale comparison to what I view marriage as, but as for rights under the law, it's simply unAmerican to deny them certain rights. I think it's wrong for CEOs to make over 400 times as much as their average worker's salary, while their own workforce has to negotiate which bill they won't pay that month, between their food, electricity, and mortgage.
That's why I'm writing this article. I think the two-party system is atrociously flawed in the fact that we only have two choices, between two candidates, to make all our decisions on all issues. I think it's especially wrong that priests - fallen humans like the rest of us who have their share of faults, and that's forgivable because we're all humans - might force people to vote for one party, because of a pet issue that the Catholic church is vehemently against. Do they seriously want us to vote a Republican into office because they think that person will be able to make abortion illegal entirely? Is that worth the cost of starving us all and denying 98% of the population affordable health care? It makes it very hard for a rational, moral person to vote for one party or the other, because they've taken every Catholic belief I have, and divvied them up between them, and I have to sell myself out either way. It used to be that any candidate had to strive toward political center to get the most votes, and cherry pick a few issues from the other party's traditional platform to support as a compromise. That left more variety of choices. But now I have to side with gluttons and spit on the poor to win the dignity of an unborn child. I have to join forces with people living in sin to promote a living wage. In the meanwhile, all we've done is cause the American population to fiercely divide and hate each other, and throw compromise to the wind, because it's about one party winning, not any coherent set of issues prevailing within our borders. It's great that we can all choose our religion, but there isn't much most of us can do about our geographic location. So why can't we work like neighbors?
A completely unrealistic solution I had was to have a government wherein we vote on our officials based on singular issues. A candidate would run as the pro-life vs. the pro-choice candidate, and that is the only issue that either of them can vote on. Yeah, I realize that we'd have to quintuple the size of congress, which is a sinking ship as it is, just so we could accommodate so many people into so many specialized committees - which is what we do already is assign arbitrary people to committees for special interest laws. My idea is really clunky, and I don't know how we'd do it logistically, but wouldn't it be nice to know that a candidate I voted for, would actually do the things I voted for them to do? I mean, I voted for Obama because he seemed like he'd be a great negotiator (which let's face it, he tried to be, and at the first sign of weakness, the GOP galvanized itself to brick-wall him at every turn since), and mostly because he cared about the middle class worker being able to live comfortably and afford a home. "The American Dream." I liked the idea of fixing a very greedy health care, pharmaceutical, and insurance system. I did not like the idea that he'd be promoting pro-choice or gay rights issues very much, and that's not why I voted for him, but... them's the breaks, and compromises have to be made. Because I did not elect him Pope. I elected him President.
So Catholics, tell me. Have you stopped to consider how short-sighted it is to always vote Republican? Do you let one pet issue inform your entire vote? Because any elected official makes more than one decision in a term, and on more than just your pet issue. Think hard, think about every issue separately, and think about all of us. Including that nice agnostic girl who babysits your children, she's been your best friend for a few years. You know, she's a good girl and she has to feed her kids too, and they need health care coverage. If want to evangelize her about the psychological dangers of abortion, go ahead, but let her agree with you on her own terms, don't force her to. You are not her parents. You are not her church. You ARE her geographical neighbor. Give to Caesar what is Caesar's if that's what she wants. Your God gave her free will, let her use it. You might have been told to admonish the sinner and spread the good news, but above all your instruction was to love your neighbor. You will catch more flies with honey, and the cream of good reasoning will boil to the top. Let God reach that person, through examples of your love if necessary. But using your vote to force your state to force your church upon her isn't doing you any favors for credibility for your beliefs in her mind. Voting a candidate into office based on one goal is narrow-minded and foolhardy. I don't care if you still want to vote GOP, that's your choice, I'll still love you, I just want to know that you really, really thought about it, and realized the repercussions. ALL of them.
One thing I find funny though, and am a bit at odds with in the Catholic community, is that many priests and practitioners will try to influence people to vote a certain way. I am not knocking the church itself, because the Popes have made it very clear that they do not influence state politics anywhere in the world, they just inform moral opinion, which of course people use to discern their votes. There's a significant difference there, and I like that and respect the church for it... at the international level. However, once you get down to the locality of bishops and below, some of those clergy have been known to take it upon themselves to explicitly say "Vote against Amendment #34" or whatever, which to me is wrong. The church at the higher levels absolutely believes in separation of church vs. state, and even Jesus told us to give to Caesar what is Caesar's.
I think what people forget to consider in that separation is the role of each. Yes, the church is doing its role by informing our moral opinions. But that's also because those of us who hear the church's teaching are more often than not, part of the church. We fall under its jurisdiction, which is wonderful in building community across the country and around the world. The voice and law of Catholicism reaches us across seas and domains of leadership, it affects the man in the desert, and the woman on the island, and the children in the snow. As the Universal church, its reach is everywhere. That's really cool. And it can inform our morality everywhere. Cool, cool. And the beauty of freedom of religion, which is law nearly everywhere now, is that we choose to fall under the reach of the church no matter where we are geographically. That's amazing.
But the state's jurisdiction is drawn in the dirt. Atheists, Protestants, Buddhists, and Catholics, are all Americans, and for the most part, it's hard for us to change that fact. And the laws we vote into action affect all of us, often times against our will, within that jurisdiction. That's why we're trying democracy, so that at least most of us had a voice. Granted, part of authority, even like the church's, is that they have to make laws that not everyone agrees with, that's just a fact of life on earth. But thanks to the freedom of religion, if you disagree with the Catholic church, well then leave it! Become an Episcopalian or whatever works for you, no one's stopping you! Just change your mind, and you're out of their reach. But to escape the jurisdiction of the law of the state, you need to change your geography. That's way easier said than done.
Yeah, as Catholics we should totally let our morality and the church inform our opinions on our vote, but this concept is completely lost on a lot of people that how you vote - even if it's the right thing - does have a real affect on your neighbors who disagree with you. This can overlap with lots of other topics too like evangelization; I personally believe you can catch more flies with honey, and beating people over the head with your faith doesn't convert them. I also believe you can't force someone to love you because at that point you've broken the definition of love, which should be freely chosen, ergo free will was given to us by God, but that's digressing. My point is, no one in this country wants to vote thinking about their fellow man. They want their opinion to win in politics, rather than working as a team. They forget that they are as much American as they are Catholics.
I bring this up because after reading about Catholic Social Teaching and Natural Family Planning, I realized that politically, I am pretty moderate in the United States political theater (let's be honest, that's what it is), because I fall on both camps, yet really my Catholic background determines my "side" of every issue we vote on. I'm socially conservative, but fiscally liberal, and I think that suits Catholic teaching, but surprisingly does not suit the way certain priests have told me to vote.
It's true, I'm hardcore Catholic, by reasoned choice. I'm very pro-life, vehemently against both abortion and contraception. I'm in favor of charity work, making sure people are rightfully paid a living wage, enough to raise their family on and pay for a house, but not a lavish lifestyle. I believe marriage is a special sacrament between a man and a woman and they symbolize a deeper love that the Father has for all humans on earth because whether they agree to it or not, they are His children. I believe in forgiveness, love, and consideration of your neighbor. These are all informed by my Catholic morals, learned through years of philosophy within the church.
But I'm also an American, and not by choice, though I have a little pride in my position. I believe in freedom, democracy, concern for fellow man, justice, and the like. And when I consider all the things I just said about separation of church and state, and realizing how my actions affect those in my dual jurisdictions that I find myself in, I actually want to make some compromises. I think it's wrong to make abortion and contraception illegal across the board. I think they're abominations to human life, but the fact is not everyone in my state agrees with me, and those that disagree will take a lot of risks to their health and harm others on the way if they resorted to illegal methods to achieve their goals. I think it's wrong to deny gay couples the right to "be married" under the law of the state, because if one of them goes to the hospital, or dies and has to bequeath their belongings, that person, as a person who does love as Jesus loves in some ways, is best served being able to receive the company of their companion, and leave their legacy to that companion. That companion knows them best and is in the best position to help that person. Make no mistake, I see the "marriage" as a hollow, pale comparison to what I view marriage as, but as for rights under the law, it's simply unAmerican to deny them certain rights. I think it's wrong for CEOs to make over 400 times as much as their average worker's salary, while their own workforce has to negotiate which bill they won't pay that month, between their food, electricity, and mortgage.
That's why I'm writing this article. I think the two-party system is atrociously flawed in the fact that we only have two choices, between two candidates, to make all our decisions on all issues. I think it's especially wrong that priests - fallen humans like the rest of us who have their share of faults, and that's forgivable because we're all humans - might force people to vote for one party, because of a pet issue that the Catholic church is vehemently against. Do they seriously want us to vote a Republican into office because they think that person will be able to make abortion illegal entirely? Is that worth the cost of starving us all and denying 98% of the population affordable health care? It makes it very hard for a rational, moral person to vote for one party or the other, because they've taken every Catholic belief I have, and divvied them up between them, and I have to sell myself out either way. It used to be that any candidate had to strive toward political center to get the most votes, and cherry pick a few issues from the other party's traditional platform to support as a compromise. That left more variety of choices. But now I have to side with gluttons and spit on the poor to win the dignity of an unborn child. I have to join forces with people living in sin to promote a living wage. In the meanwhile, all we've done is cause the American population to fiercely divide and hate each other, and throw compromise to the wind, because it's about one party winning, not any coherent set of issues prevailing within our borders. It's great that we can all choose our religion, but there isn't much most of us can do about our geographic location. So why can't we work like neighbors?
A completely unrealistic solution I had was to have a government wherein we vote on our officials based on singular issues. A candidate would run as the pro-life vs. the pro-choice candidate, and that is the only issue that either of them can vote on. Yeah, I realize that we'd have to quintuple the size of congress, which is a sinking ship as it is, just so we could accommodate so many people into so many specialized committees - which is what we do already is assign arbitrary people to committees for special interest laws. My idea is really clunky, and I don't know how we'd do it logistically, but wouldn't it be nice to know that a candidate I voted for, would actually do the things I voted for them to do? I mean, I voted for Obama because he seemed like he'd be a great negotiator (which let's face it, he tried to be, and at the first sign of weakness, the GOP galvanized itself to brick-wall him at every turn since), and mostly because he cared about the middle class worker being able to live comfortably and afford a home. "The American Dream." I liked the idea of fixing a very greedy health care, pharmaceutical, and insurance system. I did not like the idea that he'd be promoting pro-choice or gay rights issues very much, and that's not why I voted for him, but... them's the breaks, and compromises have to be made. Because I did not elect him Pope. I elected him President.
So Catholics, tell me. Have you stopped to consider how short-sighted it is to always vote Republican? Do you let one pet issue inform your entire vote? Because any elected official makes more than one decision in a term, and on more than just your pet issue. Think hard, think about every issue separately, and think about all of us. Including that nice agnostic girl who babysits your children, she's been your best friend for a few years. You know, she's a good girl and she has to feed her kids too, and they need health care coverage. If want to evangelize her about the psychological dangers of abortion, go ahead, but let her agree with you on her own terms, don't force her to. You are not her parents. You are not her church. You ARE her geographical neighbor. Give to Caesar what is Caesar's if that's what she wants. Your God gave her free will, let her use it. You might have been told to admonish the sinner and spread the good news, but above all your instruction was to love your neighbor. You will catch more flies with honey, and the cream of good reasoning will boil to the top. Let God reach that person, through examples of your love if necessary. But using your vote to force your state to force your church upon her isn't doing you any favors for credibility for your beliefs in her mind. Voting a candidate into office based on one goal is narrow-minded and foolhardy. I don't care if you still want to vote GOP, that's your choice, I'll still love you, I just want to know that you really, really thought about it, and realized the repercussions. ALL of them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)