Quick update.
The past week was fun. We are seeing evidence of the beautiful Northeast fall. We went to the DC Temple over the weekend and saw the organe, red, and yellow colors of fall revealing themselves.
It was spectacular. We also saw a funny cow trailer at the gas station, as you can see in the picture below.
To Sharon's delight we came home to find this sign in our yard. She has been trying to figure out how to get one for the last few weeks.
Midterms are this week. I hope they go well.
As I was reading around today online I found this interesting article called, 'The New Age of Frugality'. It talks about Americans learning how to be frugal again. I had to smile to myself as I was reminded of the many messages I've heard from church leaders about living frugal and within our means. I went to the church website and did a quick search on 'living within your means'. A good list of talks and articles came up with dates like 1981, 1984, 1986, 1987, 1998, 2001, 2002, 2004, 2005, 2008. That is just a small sample. I would like to post the links to a few of these as they were intersting to me.
- First to note was President Ezra Taft Benson's artilce in the June 1987 Ensign. The article was entitled, Pay thy Debt, and live.
- The second one I liked was President Hinkley in a talk in conference published in the Nov ensign. The talk is entitled, 'To the Boys and To the Men' He said, "I repeat, I hope we will never again see such a depression. But I am troubled by the huge consumer installment debt which hangs over the people of the nation, including our own people. In March 1997 that debt totaled $1.2 trillion, which represented a 7 percent increase over the previous year."
- Another ensign artilce I found that references the talk above was in 2002 called, 'Climbing out of Debt'. There was a good section on 'Choose an affordable home'.
- And one in the January Ensign of 2008 less than one year ago, 'Happily living within our Means'. I like how it starts out talking about accountability and being accountable for our actions, especially when it comes to finances.
As I've thought about the mess the world financial system is in, and other 'messes' in which we generally find ourselves, I've found myself relating it to something that is a little graphic, but it might get people's attention. It's like when you pee on the seat. I have become aware that this is a plague that both men and women face. It becomes a serious issue when using public restrooms. Some, nay most people just don't know how to be responsible and clean up after themselves. Too many people just leave it around for the next person to deal with. Clean up after yourself! I learned that when I was potty trained or thereabout. And Sharon claims that no-one is really potty trained at all, until they learn this rule.
In a political economics class I took last year when the dollar first began to fall we discussed what was happening, why it was happening, and what the implications would be. One of the consequences and ways to correct the problem was to do exactly what this article and the prophets, said tighen the belt and live within your means. It seems if anyone is to blame for the situation we're in its all of us.
Follow up on the last post.
I wanted to thank the people who put in a voice on the thoughts of the last post. My intent was not to offend, so if I did I apologize. I don't know why, but I always feel the need to question my own assumptions about the world. I find that doing so I either find my assumption was right, or that I was wrong. I hate to admit that I'm wrong, but I'm human and am usually wrong.
One point many have brought up with regards to health care is the idea of welfare. I think this will become an area of great study for me over the next while. While doing my search on the above topics I ran into an interesting talk by Elder Robert D. Hales back when he was the presiding Bishop. The talk, 'Welfare Principles to Guide Our Lives: An Eternal Plan for the Welfare of Men’s Souls'.
My question is would it really be a 'hand out' or a way to 'entrap the poor in self deflating system that trampled initiative'? From my point of view right now is that people, even those who are wealthy and have health care, are in a real bind when they get sick with something serious, like cancer. You either get really lucky and the 'health insurance' you have works. In which case you would probably still pay a lot of money, or you are disqualified and spend an even larger proportion of money on the cure, or you can't afford it and you die sometimes in a way not very pleasant. What kind of a society thinks it's appropriate to let someone die because they can't afford care? Isn't that putting a price on life?
If all have health care provided and all contribute through tax, is it really a hand out? It seems like people who need care would get it. Having received care they might be healthy enough to contribute to the economy by working and be able to afford to live somewhere, not to mention be able to pay taxes. Maybe that is too ideal. At least people won't have to go into debt to pay for medical procedures or die because of the unfortunate bad luck of getting sick.
There was a good point given about quality of care. Social medicine would lead to a decline in the quality of health care we recienve. To which I would ask those who have lived abroad and experienced a 'social' health care system. Was the quality poor? If it was bad was it because it was a social program or was it due to something else? Was there evidence of corruption and degrading health conditions in the country? Last I checked the US was ranked 37th by the United Nations on the quality of its healthcare. The best healthcare was provided by France.
I think it is tempting for me to look at third world countries and think that the quality of their social health care is bad because it's socialized. But I've been thinking lately that it could be bad because the country is still developing. If some third world countries I have been to had only private health care a lot of people would be suffering more than they are right now and the people might be poorer if they had to seek help from private institutions. I think I'm really going against the grain on this line of thought, but I still feel like there is a lot to be explored, explained, and discussed.
5 comments:
Thanks for your thoughtful post. I've had a lot of problems with health insurance companies in the past--they don't care about the person, they just care about the bottom line. They hire people to look for frivolous reasons to reject claims.
I know in England doctors get bonuses if they can get their patients to stop smoking. Their health program is people-based, not money-based. Everyone's covered--and somehow they pay less, per capita, for health insurance than we do. I think too often in the US we think we're too high and mighty to follow someone else's example. Many European countries have first-rate health insurance, and no one has to worry about not being covered. And most of their citizens are quite happy about the system. (And yes, I've spent 4 years in Europe. I've seen it first hand.)
My dad works for a company that doesn't offer health insurance. They pay well, but it's a start-up, and employees are responsible for finding their own. My dad is in great shape, but suffered a mini-stroke a few years ago, and no insurance company will touch him. He's very active, eats healthy, etc. but if he gets a serious illness, there goes my parent's life savings and their house.
I think that most people with health insurance don't realize how much is taken out of their paycheck to pay for it. If that money went to a real program that focused on preventive health care and covered everyone, instead of on denying claims, that money would bless more people.
Of course, insurance companies don't want that.
I very much appreciate your insight and thoughts on these subjects. These last two postings have really helped me to look closer at the health care system and the problems found therein. I agree something does need to be done about the system. I listened to the presidental debates this last week and Obama cleared up a few misconceptions I had about his health care plan which I had emailed you about. I still think it needs more consideration however. There should be no socioeconomical bias when giving health care. Included in this health care system, prevention should also play a large role. In the US, when a doctor has a patient who smokes, many hospitals have made it mandate to discuss quiting. However this is not enough. Providing health care to everyone in a country such as ours proves to be a daunting task.
I plan on watching Micheal Moore's movie SiCKO to better understand his views. I have read the reviews and he makes a huge deal about the US being 37th on the "quality" of health care list. I don't believe however, that this is an accurate rating... here is a past news article debating that subject. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/08/why_the_us_ranks_low_on_whos_h.html
Whenever looking at statistics, it is important to look at how they came to be. This article takes a good look at it, and the author is a credible one (John Strossel). There are many problems in the US, and much has to do with its health care system, but I do not believe the quality is poor in the United States.
I am interested in your following posts on your newly posed question, and seeing what others have to say about living abroad.
Good luck with midterms!
There is one big problem with the concept of a government run health care system, and that is the government (and I work for the government). I would challenge you to name one program that the government runs well. If you think dealing with health insurance companies is painful, and it is, that will be nothing compared to dealing with the government if they are running things. I don't know of any socialized health care system that is even close to the one we have now. If you read the stories of those in socialized medicine programs, I'm not so sure you would be convinced that it would be the solution. Much of the rise in costs for health care are related to government regulations, along with other notables like lawsuits and illegal immigration.
If you think the politicians want to implement this because they like you better than an insurance company might, you should look closer at the politicians (of any party). They are pandering in order to gain power, but they are going way beyond what the constitution allows. I refer you to the following story, which I found very enlightening. I think we are also at the point where many will vote for those who will promise them the most stuff (always with someone elses money):
In the early 1800’s Congress was considering a bill to appropriate tax dollars for the widow of a distinguished naval officer. Several beautiful speeches had been made in support of this bill. It seemed that everyone in the House favored it. The Speaker of the House was just about to put the question to a vote, when Davy Crockett, famous frontiersman and then Congressman from Tennessee, rose to his feet.
“Mr. Speaker, I have as much respect for the memory of the deceased and as much sympathy for the suffering of the living as any man in this House, but we must not permit our respect for the dead or our sympathy for a part of the living to lead us into an act of injustice to the balance of the living. I will not go into an argument to prove that Congress has no power to appropriate this money as an act of charity. Every member upon this floor knows it. We have the right, as individuals to give away as much of our own money as we please in charity, but as members of Congress we have no right to so appropriate a dollar of the public money. Some eloquent appeals have been made to us upon the ground that it is a debt due the deceased. Sir, this is no debt. We cannot without the grossest corruption, appropriate this money as the payment of a debt. We have not the semblance of authority to appropriate it as a charity. I cannot vote for this bill, but I will give one week’s pay, and if every member of Congress will do the same, it will amount to more than the bill asks.”
There was silence on the floor of the House as Crockett took his seat. When the bill was put to a vote, instead of passing unanimously as had been expected, it received only a few votes. The next day a friend approached Crockett and asked why he spoken against a bill for such a worthy cause. In reply, Crockett related the following story:
Just a few years before, he had voted to spend $20,000.00 of public money to help the victims of a terrible fire in Georgetown. When the legislative session was over, Crockett made a trip back home to do some campaigning for his re-election. In his travels he encountered one of his constituents, a man by the name of Horatio Bunce. Mr. Bunce bluntly informed Crockett, “I voted for you the last time. I shall not vote for you again.”
Crockett, feeling he had served his constituents well, was stunned. He inquired as to what he had done to so offend Mr. Bunce. Bunce replied, “You gave a vote last winter which shows that either you have not capacity to understand the Constitution, or that you are wanting in the honesty and firmness to be guided by it. The Constitution, to be worth anything, must be held sacred, and rigidly observed in all its provisions.” “I take the papers from Washington and read very carefully all the proceedings of Congress. My papers say that last winter you voted for a bill to appropriate $20,000.00 to some sufferers by a fire. Well, Colonel, where do you find in the Constitution any authority to give away public money in charity? No Colonel, Congress has no right to give charity. Individual members may give as much of their own money as they please, but they have no right to touch a dollar of the public money for that purpose.”
“The people have delegated to Congress, by the Constitution, the power to do certain things. To do these, it is authorized to collect and pay moneys, and for nothing else. Everything beyond this is usurpation, and a violation of the Constitution. You have violated the Constitution in what I consider to be a vital point. It is a precedent fraught with danger to the country, for when Congress once begins to stretch its power beyond the limits of the Constitution, there is no limit to it, and no security for the People.”
“I could not answer him,” said Crockett. “I was so fully convinced that he was right.” I said to him, “Well, my friend, you hit the nail upon the head when you said I had not sense enough to understand the Constitution. If you will forgive me and vote for me again, if I ever vote for another nconstitutional law, I wish I may be shot.”
After finishing the story, Crockett said, “Now sir, you know why I made that speech yesterday. There is one thing now to which I will call your attention. You remember that I proposed to give a weeks pay? There are in that House many very wealthy men, men who think nothing of spending a weeks pay, or a dozen of them, for a dinner or a wine party when they have something to accomplish by it. Some of these same men made beautiful speeches upon the debt of gratitude which the country owed the deceased, yet not one of them responded to my proposition. Money with them is nothing but trash when it is to come out of the people. But it is the one great thing for which most of them are striving, and many of them sacrifice honor, integrity, and justice to obtain it.”
The government al
Thanks for the feedback Josh and Joel.
Post a Comment