Why We All Need Proof-Readers and Other Interesting Stuff from Around the Web

We all know that those running for office can develop a strong personal animus for their opponent.  But did we ever expect them to make up and tie the knot?  This headline is why we have proof-readers.  Click here: McCain, Obama avoid same-sex marriage - Yahoo! News

Here's a very lame attempt to prove that Mormonism is actually "Christian."  This bit of bilge comes directly from the "First Quorum of the Seventy."  Lets put it this way . . .  The title is more impressive than the argument.  Click here: FIRST THINGS: A Journal of Religion, Culture, and Public Life

Ladies, he's on the market again.  Better snap him up quick!   And he's a "bishop" to boot.  He's also been convicted of domestic violence against his previous wife (Juanita Bynum).  I'm all for forgiveness, but a little shame is appropriate in some circumstances.  This guy obviously has none.  Click here: The Associated Press: Televangelist's ex-husband seeks new wife on Web

You really want government health care?  Are you sure?  Yes, it may be free, but . . .  You really want it?  Click here: Man dies after 34-hour stay in Winnipeg ER waiting room

Comments

[Rob]

Kim,

I'm a huge fan but you gotta be kidding me? This is your argument against ensuring that every man, woman, and child in America has health insurance? Why not do a search through the American newspapers and see how many stories appear about people who died or suffered very serious illnesses because they couldn't AFFORD to go to a doctor in the first place?

I've been without health insurance for most of my adult life (though I've nearly always had a job), primarily because I simply could not afford it. The choice wasn't between having the luxuries of life and buying insurance, it was between eating and paying the rent.

Those without insurance aren't asking for something for nothing, we're asking for medical care for us and our families at rates we can afford.

I believe this is a MORAL issue and we as Christians need to work to ensure equal access to healthcare for all Americans, regardless of their ability to pay. Life and death should not depend on what your income is.


SDG


Rob

[Randy]

I guess if we have to make a decision on moral grounds that we should vote for the party that supports universal health care, then shouldn't we make a decision on moral grounds to vote against that party that supports abortion on demand at any stage of pregnancy? This presents some kind of quandary doesn't it?

[Char]

That it is public is the least of the problems for our health care system. Shortages of professionals and other things that would still be costs even in a private system come in long before that.

Even at that I suppose the problem that anyone can wait 34 hours in the ER in Canada rather than just those who can't afford care is a real one.

[Lloyd]

I sell insurance (including health) part time, but I really feel for Rob, and his situation.

Unfortunately, the situation that Rob is in, is becoming all too commonplace.

We recently had an article in the Arizona Republic about a fellow that had his masters degree, great credit, and a great job. He had a nice house in Scottsdale. His problem, was that he had five children. Three of them had to have surgeries, and this forced this responsible person into bankruptcy. His insurance didn't cover these surgeries like a Kaiser would in Southern Calif.

In my own case, I need two shoulder surgeries, a hip replacement, and a possible back surgery as well.

I have to be extremely careful of going to the doctor for any of these conditions, because once I get treated, it will thus go down as a pre existing condition, and then I wouldn't even be covered if I should change insurance plans, or purchase another insurance plan.

What a lot of insurance companies (most of them) do, is if you have had a major surgery, they will want to look for a way to terminate your coverage. The way that they do this, is to put you into a high risk category, and raise your rates so high, that you can't afford the insurance any longer, so you will just drop it. At that point, most of the other insurance providers will not cover you either.

Out here in Arizona (where there is not a Kaiser), if you have a pre existing condition, it will not even be covered under many of the employer insurance plans.

It does appear, that if you are young and healthy, you can purchase health insurance at an affordable price. But, if you are older, and have had a couple of problems, you are screwed.

I certainly don't know what the answer is to this very complicated problem.

Although, I can certainly understand Pastor Kim's tongue in cheek kidding as well. Our country is in a real mess in regards to health insurance.

[Alberto]

I don't feel the strong moral impulse to provide all Americans with healthcare, in large part because I think that the American people have brought this problem upon themselves. It seems that the main problem is the type of diet and lifestyle Americans live; if more Americans attempted to live a healthier lifestyle consistently, I don't think we would have the kind of insurance costs that make it difficult for a family to be covered. Many of the people who complain about health care don't seem to care about their health until something hits them. How many of these people attempt to eat whole grains, 5-9 servings of fruits and vegetables, avoid saturated and trans fats, do some form physical activity on a regular basis, have good oral hygiene, attempt to maintain a clean environment, and do anything else that they know will benefit their health? How many people help their kids live a healthy lifestyle. If Americans were truly thoughtful and compassionate about those with a lack of necessary medical help, they would begin by doing what they themselves are already able to do.

By the way, aren't there programs for seniors and minors to get free or low cost medical coverage if they cannot afford it on their own already? I know of some children and seniors who do benefit from this in CA, and it doesn't bother me that it's available for them.

[Alberto]

On Mormonism being Christian, I'm too young to know this, but I have heard that Mormons from some years ago didn't care much about calling themselves Christians. Is this true?

[Zrim]

Rob said, "I believe this is a MORAL issue and we as Christians need to work to ensure equal access to healthcare for all Americans, regardless of their ability to pay."

Rob, please, don't we have enough moralism in the ranks distracting us from the gospel? Fetus-politics alone has spooked the lion's share away from the Cross.

Randy, it's only a quandry if one hasn't completely flushed moralism from the gospel. It seems political-moralism may be the final frontier.

Re proof-texters, I hope everyone is aware that today is National Punctuation Day. The semi-colon is not a medical condition.

[George]

One of the things I like most about this blog site is the way responses jump off into many different and often unanticipated directions. For example, I had no idea that Sept. 24 is National Punctuation Day. But, sure enough, here it is:

http://www.nationalpunctuationday.com/

And on that subject, one form of punctuation my wife uses excessively when emailing is the ellipsis...which drives me crazy!

[I'm surprised that the National Punctuation people haven't been forced to include "emoticons" as a new form of grammar] ;-)

[Zrim]

George,

Like Annie Lennox said, would I lie to you?

I must admit, I over use the parenthesis and ellipsis the way others might the exclamation point...(but I can't help it).

Emoticons are to punctuation what moralism is to the gospel.

[George]

Zrim:

"Emoticons are to punctuation what moralism is to the gospel"

You may have just coined a brand new analogy here. Congratulations. I've got it book marked and plan to use it whenever I receive emoticon-laden messages.

George

[Luken]

Sadly in this day and age it is a typical knee-jerk reaction to solve every problem with further government intervention. Do we have a health care problem in this country? Maybe. Has greater Government involvement ever solved a problem? probably not. I would argue that the "crisis" we have now in the health care system is not from a lack of government intervention but directly because of it. History has shown time and again that greater centralized power has a disastrous effect on a nations stability, economic well being, and overall liberty of it's citizens. The question we should be asking is not: What can the government do to solve this problem? The questions we should be asking: Are the policies that are being proposed to solve the problem Constitutional? Does the government have the right and legal authority to enact said proposed policy? etc etc... If we bypass the constitutional rule of law every time we have a "moral imperative" is it really a moral imperative? Where does that road eventually lead? Can it lead to anywhere but a subjective, tyrannical, rule by moral busy bodies convinced by what seems right to them?

[Lloyd]

Alberto:

I eat 5 to 9 servings of fruits and vegetables every day. I drink non-fat milk, and I don't even eat any cheese with my glass of Cabernet Sauvignon (which I drink everyday for my heart -- and it tastes good too!). I take regular Omega 3 fish oil, and I drink eight glasses of water everyday. I also drink eight ounces of cranberry and pomegranate juice daily. I only eat desert one day a week. My doctor told me that she has never seen anyone eat better than I do.

Darn it. It still did not prevent me from needing numerous surgeries.

As you mentioned, there are programs for minors and seniors, and extremely low income people.

But, what about a person, that is 50 years old, eats correctly and exercises, but suffers a heart attack? This person might only be making 25,000 a year, (way too much to qualify for low income state paid medical insurance). Hypothetically and realistically, this person's company could go out of business. He will not qualify for any personal, or most employer based insurance programs. (He is screwed, to the max!)

I have had clients that are paying more for their medical insurance, than they are paying for their mortgage! Please, brother, have compassion on these poor souls!! (Lets not be like Job's friend.)

Hopefully, this will never happen to you, but I can assure you, that it is going on all around you! And, it is a HUGE social problem.

You seem like you are blessed with knowing how to rectify this very serious problem. More power to you! Like I said, in my above referenced blog, I sell insurance, and I DO NOT have any easy answers to this very complicated issue!!

[Lloyd]

One more thing:

I also am for less government, less taxes, less spending etc. I also feel that, for the most part, the government is to blame for most of the mess in our country. (I am against government bail out's of poorly run financial institutions, no matter the cost, or the consequences.)

But, for health care, there has to be a much better way. There are many problems, and very few answers! I confess, I don't have an answer.

[Lloyd]

Correction: A 50 year old that has had a heart attack can still qualify for company sponsered medical insurance. But, his heart surgery will count against him as a pre-existing condition.

I worked with a gentleman, that had suger diabetes, and the company insurance would not cover him in any diabetes related issues.

California may be different though.

[John Yeazel]

Some heated exchange about our countries health care system. I am not going to go there because, as Lloyd says, the issue is a very complex one (I hope my punctuation is correct-LOL). This Mormon issue is becoming more theologically complex and subtle too. We have a Mormon phd chemist who does some consulting work for our family business and I recently engaged him in a theological discussion over the differences between Christianity and Mormonism. He refuses to call himself a Mormon or even a Latter-day Saint now. From what he said there is a breakaway group from both sects even though they still believe that the other Mormon sacred texts are inspired. He told me the name they call themselves but I do not recall what that name was.

After reading through the article in the web link this guy said almost exactly the same things the writer of this article said. He must have read McDermott's and Millet's book contrasting Evangelicals and Mormons beliefs about Christ. They make these subtle distinctions in regards the Trinity, Christ's atonement, which according to them began in Gethsemane when the Father took the Holy Spirit from him and some eschatological distinctions which enables them to maintain their beliefs in these other sacred Mormon texts. It also strengthens their belief that God still works through Apostles and Prophets today. This allows the "new revelations" to continue and allows them to maintain their belief that they are the "true Church." They twist their theology to fit their scheme of things. They are worse than many politicians. Plus they have such a moral and righteous air (or is it heir?) about them.

[Randy]

Zrim said
"Randy, it's only a quandry if one hasn't completely flushed moralism from the gospel. It seems political-moralism may be the final frontier."

So how does this flush out in the way in which we do the good works that we are created to do as believers? How can someone call themselves Christian and stills support a political party that endorses, even encourages the murder of the most helpless among us?

I am very much against a moralistic gospel. The gospel is not about what we do in society, it is about what Christ has done on the cross.

But to support anyone who advocates murder as part of their political platform is dishonoring to God. We are to be salt and light in the world, and part of that is to stand for justice, and abortion is the most unjust action in our society, so Christians should stand against it at all costs, even at the cost of health insurance if need be.

Just my two cents worth.

[reg]

Let the polemics continue: (that is a colon, not a semi-colon)

Alberto, your post seems to vacillate between the position taken by Job's friends, that is that the sick have brought upon their diseases themselves by their sinful living and the position of Ebenezer Scrooge at the beginning of the story: "Are there no workhouses? Are our poor houses full?" I guess universal health care would only encourage people to get sick.

Luken, you say "The question we should be asking is not: What can the government do to solve this problem? The questions we should be asking: Are the policies that are being proposed to solve the problem Constitutional? Does the government have the right and legal authority to enact said proposed policy? etc etc.." As a lawyer I am not sure universal health care has any constitutional infirmities one way or the other. It is a political issue subject to the will of the voters. It may or may not be good policy, but it is not a constitutional issue.

Zrim, What exactly are you saying? Do you not find abortion a troubling moral issue? A moral issue can be held by each of us as citizens as to what kind of society we want to live in which does not become confused with issues of salvation, grace and sanctification. I can hold a moral opinion and vote it and that is perfectly appropriate. In doing so I am not saying it has anything to do with the Gospel beyond that the Gospel and my view of God may inform my assessment of right and wrong. Are our laws against theft and murder also inappropriate?

[hb]

I'm facing a period in my life in which it is highly probable that I will not have insurance. No longer employed, I am currently on my husband's coverage at work but it costs us almost $600 per month. He is able to retire in a year which will more than likely be expanded to two or even three years.

As citizens we need to remember that many of our peers served on juries that allowed exorbitant awards to claimants that in turn, caused malpractice insurance to skyrocket. Throw in the fees that lawyers charge, and indeed, we have a problem!
I have a cousin who drove to Mexico every three months in order to see a physician and obtain medications.
Likewise, people obtained mortgages for which they shouldn't have qualified. Shouldn't a lot of this "blame" lie on the citizenry of the US?
Now, I'm NOT a fan of big gov't and I definitely do not want them meddling in my medical care.
I do not have answers and the politicians certainly don't. All we can do is pray for our leaders and trust God to supply our needs. Is that too naive? Maybe...

[Alberto]

I'm no Scrooge, but I must admit that my corrupt nature is not distant from his; although it is being transformed for the better.

Listen, I was speaking in general about the destructive nature of the lifestyles of Americans; I understand that not everyone who suffers from serious illness has obtained it due to a lack of diligence on their part. I don't have the same mindset of Job's friends; I have personal experience wilth illness that did not come about because of a particular sin committed or a bad lifestyle. The analogy with Job's friends doesn't really fit this issue and with the way I expressed myself. I stand by what I said; some people just read too much into what I said.

I was also not giving an answer for all the problems in healthcare, I was simply stating something that seems quite reasonable, particularly in light of the fact that insurance companies and employers are actually encouraging and even pushing employees to live healthier lives by doing things like lowering insurance costs when certain lifestyle conditions are met.

Look, I just prefer for people to do what they are able to do on their own first, then ask for help. But as in so many things, many people clamor for the state's help when many are already able to do something about their condition.

I won't say anymore about this, since I'm not an expert and didn't intend on saying much about this.

[Char]

So what about our active righteousness?? All is moralism? I always thought it is only if we confuse it for our righteousness before God.