Marry Poppins you are not welcome here!

/sigh

I can't ignore the stupidity....I try...really.....but it is prevalent more and more.  I won't even go into the poll numbers showing the stupidity of my fellow citizens who think Obama is either not an American Citizen or is a closet Muslim.  Were not talking about the outer tail of the bell curve, but lots and lots of really stupid and ignorant people.  And no matter what you tell them or show them, they just keep up the dumbness.

So I am reading the Dallas Morning News and I come across this little diddy that screams for a response....so I did.

Real threat is nanny state

I am going to have an omelet, eat from the drive-through menu, drive a Toyota, eat spinach and apples, try to get the flu, look for a pelican soaked in crude oil, breathe some air and exhale some carbon dioxide as my bucket list issues, because these things apparently are going to get me. 

Let me tell you what is life-threatening -- this nanny, whining, wimpy, "goody two shoes" country we have become. When we decide that the new epidemic really is government intrusion in our lives, we will begin to feel a whole lot better. Bon appetite. 

Jim Janusz, Richardson

And here is my response sent to the Dallas Morning News about 5 minutes ago:

So Jim Janusz thinks we have become a "nanny state" (Letters 8/24/10) because our government works to prevent citizens from consuming E. coli contaminated spinach or salmonella infected eggs; cleans oil soaked birds; and works to prevent a flu pandemic.  I am unsure how Mr. Janusz could argue that - at the very least - the Constitution's welfare clause does not provide a valid excuse for our government to protect the health of its citizens.  Perhaps Mr. Janusz is instead arguing for a more Darwinian approach for society, that is, let them get sick and die, allowing for the strong to survive.  

If this be the case, then in the event that Mr. Janusz were to suffer a heart attack, I would hope he forgoes calling 9-1-1 and asking for a nanny-state provide paramedic to keep him alive.  At the very least this would save him the embarrassment of looking whiny and wimpy.  At the very best, it would take him - and his silly notion of what constitutes government intrusion - out of the gene pool.

That important intelligence is most likely false

So Star Parker in her article made a couple of statements that cited no source or were not backed up:

There is a reason why eight of 10 Americans say that our nation is on the wrong track.

So I went looking for this 8/10 poll that was done. Best I could find was a CBS poll done in April of 2008. Then I got to thinking about what she was stating - that 8 out of 10 folks think we're on the wrong track. She's right, I think we are on the wrong track, for completely different reasons then she does. I would answer the pollster correctly if that was how the question was asked.

That's the interesting thing about using statistics - you can spin it anyway you want to as long as you report the exact numbers. What they mean can be completely masked by how they are presented or in what context.

So, not knowing what the "wrong track" means, I can only speculate that it is the same reasons I feel that way. There is an atmosphere of distrust perpetuated by some who want their way. There is an atmosphere of fear creeping through our society that could lead to a mob mentality outcome. There is a movement to do away with justice and hand convictions out to those we deem must be guilty. There is violence threatened and put forth towards our elected officials. There is uncivil behavior towards those who do not share the same view. There is the denial of a basic human right to love and join with the person of your choosing.

There is a group - a large group - that believes it knows what is best and it aims to bully and force its wants and needs on everyone else. And for that reason I think our nation is on the wrong track. No fact checking needed I guess, I am pretty sure that 8/10 feel the wrong track analogy is in place.

What else...what else....oh:

Senator Tom Coburn [w]rote recently how he saved a patient's life by identifying a cancer using a procedure that most likely would not have been permitted under the government health care bureaucracy we are about to have. Senator Coburn has supplied us with important intelligence. Americans should know that the government rationed health care we're about to get will "not only reduce the quality of life, but their life spans as well."

Oh really? "Most likely" and you base this on what? - where in the bill does it say health care will be rationed? And, why do you think it is not being rationed now? Do you think the health insurers pay for every procedure you or your doctor wants? Read your policy knucklehead. Where in the bill - which is now law - does it create a situation where the quality of life and life spans will be reduced? Why would you print something like this as a statement of fact?

It does not, and you know it - or at least should know it. But like everything else I have read on your web page, you're nothin' but another empty suit. If you don't like the bill, state why, if you are fearful of these things happening - state that - but this bold statement couched with "most likely" really shows your true colors. You perpetuate mistruths and fear to further your own agenda - mainly your success on the speaking circuit. It's all about you isn't it?

If you really care about being a good politician you will learn the difference between rhetoric and truth unless, like I suspect, all you give a shit about is being in power and being seen as a player.

I am so done with you...Next!

Smells more like a rotten subsidy

Obamacare rears it's nasty head already!

"Taxing the subsidy means that more companies will eliminate or reduce the coverage, and more retires will shift to Medicare Part D, which will create more costs for both the government and the retirees." Excerpt from letter sent by 10 companies to congressional leaders" (source)

Gosh darn it! They said this would happen, stupid Obamacare-tax and spend liberal-take away my freedom.....wait....subsidy? Isn't a subsidy getting something.....you know like subsidizing housing or education?

So as I understand it, when we subsidize something we take from the massive pot we call revenue. We take money from this pot in the hopes of reaping a benefit, like reducing homelessness, hunger, poorly educated citizens, or even providing medical/health care for low income folks.

That sounds a lot like a handout. "Welfare!" you say, why should we taxpayers pay for things that should be the responsibility of the person? No..no..no, it' an incentive, see, we do it to get a benefit. Welfare or Incentive, different feel but same result.

Which is why this story caught my eye, you see (no pun intended) they are taking away the handout - the subsidy, the corporate welfare, the incentive.....and in so doing, those that also benefited - in this case retirees - will lose out. When the teat drys up the piglets go a' squealin'!

Retiree health benefits threatened

So lets look at this subsidy they are "losing" a bit closer.....

Jan 8 2004 (From the Wall Street Journal - six years ago)

The new federal program calls for employers to be reimbursed for 28% of the cost for prescriptions of more than $250 per retiree, up to an annual subsidy of $1,330 per retiree, beginning in 2006.

Thanks to a little-noticed provision in the new law, the government will calculate the subsidy based on both what the employer spends for prescription drugs and what the retiree spends. So if an employer and a retiree each pay $1,000 toward the retiree's medical costs, the employer's subsidy is calculated on the full $2,000, bringing the company a total subsidy of $490, rather than the $210 that it would get if it received a subsidy only on its share.

As a result, when combined with tax and accounting rules, the program allows employers in some cases to use the subsidy to erase the entire cost of prescription drugs for retirees, or even turn a profit from a drug plan. For instance, if a Medicare-eligible retiree's prescription costs are $2,550, and his former employer pays $1,000 of it, under long-standing tax rules, the employer can deduct its full $1,000 for tax purposes, meaning the after-tax cost to the company is $650 at a 35% corporate tax rate.

Meanwhile, the company doesn't pay taxes on the subsidy it receives, thanks to another provision of the new Medicare law. So in this example, the employer would receive a subsidy of $644, based on the full amount paid by both employer and retiree, reducing the company's cost for the retiree to $6 for the year.

I think a pretty good argument can be made as to who the real scoundrels are and that what is now taking place is a prudent fiscally responsible correction of a sweetheart deal. Or we can blame Obamacare for taking away retirees prescription payments.

Questions for Cal Thomas

OK, so let me sort this out. Obama states the proposed health plan will not cover illegal immigrants. This is a true statement. However, because illegal immigrants will still be able to receive emergency treatment at taxpayer expenses, Joe Wilson and his friends contend he lies.

Now I just wrote about that silly Jesus stuff about neighbors and Samaritans, so y’all know my take on this topic, but I am still perplexed at the cowardness of conservatives like Cal Thomas who dance around their true feelings on a particular topic. Now I know, I know, Mr. Thomas will state that’s not what he was implying, that he was only defending Joe Wilson’s use of the word liar. And therein lays the cowardness.

It can be left with no doubt that a certain percentage of Americans do not want illegal immigrants covered. Do you, Mr. Thomas share this view?

It is apparent that some Americans believe that continuing to allow emergency treatment to illegal immigrants is the same as covering them under Obama’s health plan. Do you, Mr. Thomas, share this view?

Now I am going to be bold here and speak for him (I just emailed him these questions and will change his reponse if he responds bak), I will say that his answer to both is “yes.”

So here is the conundrum for Mr. Thomas and his ilk…..

There are about 11 million illegal immigrants currently living in the United States. Regardless of how we feel about this - the why or how come - none of that detracts from the fact - there are 11 million here now. Of this 11 million some are children, let’s say 10%, or 1.1 million. It has been estimated (see note) that 50/100,000 children live with a life-threatening illness, so, about 550 of these illegal immigrants we could reasonably assume would require health care to save their lives.

Now the argument of the compassionate conservative will most likely be “go back to your own country so you child can receive care.” OK, fair enough. But what will be done for these children while they wait to return and/or if their parents do not choose to return? And what about those involved in an accident or striken with disease? What will be done for them if they are not covered by the health plan (as President Obama states) or they no longer receive emergency care (as Mr. Thomas would like to see)?

At this point, there are only two possible responses that can be rendered, or you can take the cowards way out and remain mute. So Mr. Thomas:

Do you deny care?

Or…

Do you provide care?

If you chose 1, then how will this be paid? Someone will get stuck with the bill, so who do you propose that someone be? I would really be interested in one conservative pundit finally mustering the courage to say what they all really feel, that is, that they value possessions over human life.



Note: Goldman, A. Care of the dying Child. Oxford University Press, 1999

Fix Fenders not People!

Interesting:

Matt Friedeman Show – 10. PRE-EXISTING CONDITIONS President Obama has repeatedly said that “no insurance company will be allowed to deny you coverage because of a pre-existing medical condition.” That sounds wonderful until you apply common sense, which is in short supply in Washington. What if we made a law that allowed you to buy car insurance after you got into an accident and that required the insurance company to pay for the damage? Wouldn’t many people just wait for an accident before buying insurance? Why wouldn’t many Americans wait until they were sick to buy health insurance?

Amanda Terresi of Liberty on the Rocks (which I wrote about last week)
The idea is that it is health insurance. The concept of insurance is that you get it before you become sick or before something happens to you. It is equivalent to not having any car insurance, hitting a tree, and calling Geico and saying you want to sign up.

OK, so same playbook, different voice. Both arguments against allowing pre-existing illness to be covered are based on these illnesses driving up the costs for everyone. OK, that is a fact, but should not be a concern. The idea behind health care reform is to have everyone covered. The viewpoint expressed by this little “c” christain and liberty only libertarian is that coverage should be denied for anyone that would drive up the cost for them.

So my question to these two individuals and anyone who shares their view, is this. If we do not include them, how will they receive care? This attitude of “well it sucks to be you” is not one that I find flattering, especially with all the horn tooting and drum banging about how much of a Christian nation we are. We have put our heads in the sand and ignored the elephant in the room for too long. Why? Because if it does not directly affect me, I can ignore it.

It is true, that no one dies in the gutter, so why all the fuss to change it? Because the way care is delivered is after the fact (people wait too long) or it is through emergency room which are mandated to provide care and either close or pass on the cost to the state and to us with health insurance. My point is – we already pay now for those not insured.

OK, my views are a bit biased because I am a public health graduate. I have bought into the idea that a healthy society is a more productive society and is better for my health and family overall. But health care is a business and those that now control it do not want to see any change in what is a pretty lucrative for them. In the mean time, lack of universal care causes treatable illnesses to go unchecked, decreases entrepreneurship, forces families into bankruptcy, or forces one to forgo care to provide for other members of the family.

Our current system sucks. Stop fighting it all out and require that it cover all (everyone in – everyone pays), is not dependent on an employer or having a job, and meets a level of care agreed upon by those in the know (based on science – not marketing or hype). Other countries do it and do it well. Why we don’t is based mainly on our greed, the “why should I give up and/or pay for those that have not secured it for themselves?” Which is then supported by the attitude of “It sucks to be you?”

But words will never hurt me?

I have concluded (way late in life) that my wife is right and that people are stupid. Now when you say this, it includes both her and I, so I guess it should really be stated that people will often believe something to be true based on perception rather than fact. In this case, words have power to sway and entrench. So lets do away with two of them in the health care debate.

Phrase 1: keep the insurance companies honest.

When President Obama said recently that it will give Americans “a better range of choices, make the health care market more competitive, and keep the insurance companies honest.” he unfortunately concluded that these companies are not being honest now or will become dishonest in the future.

Insurance companies are not the bad guys in this fight. They are a business, and as such, put the interests of their shareholders primary over everyone and everything else. This is how business works in the USA. Unless there is a driving force to "not be evil" businesses will always behave in a way that benefits them. This has nothing to do with honesty, it is the nature of the beast and why, in my opinion, government is a necessary player in a free market.

Business is a lot like the Botulinum toxin - both a remedy and a deadly poison, all at the same time. To say that the toxin is bad because it can and will kill, is to ignore the good that comes with it. In the hands of a skilled physician (government) the toxin is free to do do the work it can do (capitalism) and provide the benefits wanted by the individual (market). Those that participate in the health insurance industry are no more dishonest in their labor than the physician is an administer of poison.

Phrase 2: socialized health care system.

When Chet Edwards was asked "Have you decided how you will vote on HR 3200?" his response of "I will not vote for any bill I believe would result in a Canadian–style, socialized health care system." fed into the notion that government involvement is socialism or leads to socialism. Government involvement is, and should, be kept in check by a strong healthy free market. Asking government to step in, make laws, provide services is no more an example of socialism then Google is an example of a monopoly.

When used willy-nilly or purposely, words have power. These two phrases must be stopped dead in their tracks.

Jesus and his stupid parables

All this fuss about providing health care to illegal - or undocumented - immigrants got me thinking about a situation that could arise based on a story I once heard.

An illegal immigrant man was traveling on a trip from San Antonio to Austin when he was attacked by a gang of anti-immigration thugs. They stripped him of his clothes, beat him up, and left him half dead beside the road.

So as Obama boasted in his recent speech to Congress "The reforms I am proposing would not apply to those who are here illegally“to the catcall of “you lie!” I got to wondering about what course one would take if they came across the man in the situation described above. I could only come up with three possible scenarios (excluding take out your concealed weapon and put him out of his misery). Now if one was to come across this man would you:

A. Cross to the other side of the road and pass him by hoping someone else will take care of him.

B. Look at him lying there and pass him by telling yourself "he should not have been here in the first place (or "it sucks to be you")."

C. Feel compassion for him, sooth his wounds, and take him to a hospital, where you say "take care of this man. I’ll pay you what it costs.

If I recall, the story I based this on had a kind of Mr. Rogers take to it, something about "who is my neighbor" and I think the proper answer should be "C" or at least that's what that silly ol' Jesus fellow thought made a neighbor (Luke, chapter 10, verses 25-37).

So what does caring for someone when they need help have to do with anything? Could this have any relevance to the health care debate? Does Jesus think we owe our brothers and sisters health care, care only when they are beat up, or no care at all? Well at the end of this silly “Good Samaritan” story Jesus goes on to conclude that not only is “C”the correct answer but to:

“.. now go and do the same."

If not through the government than by whom? Jesus - a liberal, socialist, big-government, take away your property, kind of guy!

Scoring Points with Jesus

I was going to write a positive blog, really, I was. I went to find the story on our newspaper’s website, and gosh darn it, there was a response to it that begs for a comment. It’s too long to post here, but the article the comment can be found here. My response to Mr. Pampell is as follows:

This outrage Mr. Pampell feels has probably more to do with the pain he is experiencing as his greed beats into submission what is left of his humanity then the improper use of one of Jesus’ teachings by Pastor Idom.

If the stories and parables in the bible, especially in the new testament, are not to be used in our daily lives to better ourselves and thus bring us closer to God, then what possible reason is there for reading the bible or going to church? Apparently to some, when Jesus’ words run contrary to what they want then they either shoot the messenger or twist them to bring them in line. Pastor Idom used this story as a means of testing the validity of what we was thinking with how he should be thinking. When he was honest with himself, he concluded that his opposition was not in line with how he thinks God would expect him to behave.

The idea that God’s gifts to Mr. Pampell and his like - in the form of property - are being stolen to pay for health care shows exactly how high material possessions are placed in his obligation to his fellow man. Apparently all we need to do is pray harder for those that are not insured, and trust in our churches to come to the rescue. News flash, if “philanthropy, compassion, and consideration” were in abundant supply we would not be in this predicament. The fact that one can “walk into any emergency room in need of medical care, and you shall receive it, regardless of your ability to pay” is not a health care system. Who does Mr. Pampell think pays for this service? God?

It comes down to this. We have a system that does not provide equal health care to all. We have a health care system that will cause some people to go without, wait until it is too late, or cause financial ruin. So the question becomes do I have an obligation to them? And, if you include the Jesus element, are these not my neighbor he speaks about in the Good Samaritan parable? Its not robbing you to ask you to contribute to the same system you will access and use.

I, like Pastor Idom, believe I have an obligation to care for my fellow man. We are not talking about giving them access to power, or a bridge, or art, or a road. We are talking about health care for all – before you need it and when you need it, access that is not encumbered by fear of hurting ones family because of the cost. Whether the church will pay for it through my tithe, I pay for it out of philanthropy, or I pay for it in the form of a tax, one way or another all my fellow brothers and sisters must have the same care necessary to pursue life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

And liberty for all, unless you have a pre-exsisting illness

I was going to take a different approach this month and write about positive people or people that lead an honest and humanistic life. But, nooooooooo, I gotta hear a comment that just begs for a response.

Amanda Terresi of Liberty on the Rocks, a libertarian social group, was interviewed regarding Obama’s health care speech last night on NPRs Morning Addition "Groups React To Obama's Health Care Speech"

The idea is that it is health insurance. The concept of insurance is that you get it before you become sick or before something happens to you. It is equivalent to not having any car insurance, hitting a tree, and calling Geico and saying you want to sign up.

Lady, you are an idiot.

To deny those with pre-existing illness the opportunity to receive care because they are asking to get into it late in the game shows a real lack of sensitivity let alone an ignorance of how insurance is supposed to work.

Pre-existing illness is not the equivalent of how car insurance works. I am supposed to have car insurance, and if I am denied, it becomes nothing more than an inconvenience or I can play the odds and go without. But if I have an illness and am denied coverage, my options are to be rich enough to take care of it myself, poor enough to have the government pay for it, find a generous benefactor, go without, or go bankrupt.

Our present system offers very little security to those that are dependent on the whims and humanity of their employer and health insurance provider. If I hit a tree without insurance I end up with a messed up car, but if I get a heart attack without insurance, my care will be paid for by someone – you in the form of higher premiums or by the government in the form of taxes. That is the bottom line. Or, I suppose you can say “it sucks being you” and just let me die.

At the beginning, the payouts will be greater than the take. After a while, it will balance out as the “healthy” pay more in then the sick. That is how insurance is supposed to work. I pay into a car insurance pot that I have never used in 30 years. I do this to protect myself in case I need it. All that money given is used to pay for others that because of bad luck, stupidity, or an act of God needed to use it.

We need a health insurance program that everyone pays into, that is guaranteed to provide the necessary health care one needs, and is affordable. This is doable, but as long as the Amanda’s of the world want to think about only themselves, we will continue to have piss-poor health and unnecessary bankruptcies.

You do not preserve liberty by denying life or the pursuit of happiness to those unfortunate enough to be sick. There is no choice but to include everyone into the fold. To do anything less is to say their life is not worth the cost. And that my good Amanda is unacceptable in the America I want to live in.

It is what it is or is it?

Republican Party Chairman Michael Steele on NPR's Morning Edition

You have Medicare. You have Amtrak. You have the Post Office - all these government-run agencies that try to inject themselves into private markets typically don't do too well. My only point is that, okay, Medicare is what it is. It's not going anywhere. So let's focus on fixing it so that we don't every three, five, 10 years have discussions about bankruptcy and running out of money.

There is no argument with his last point. However, his first point must be addressed.

I am perplexed at the comments that come from the right. They are either purposely designed to perpetuate an idea- to distrust government's abilities in order to reduce it's standing - or they actually believe their comments to be true. I am beginning to think that the right has pushed aside intellectuals and instead welcomed in a leadership that believes in an idea but without an understanding of what is actually taking place.

So for the benefit of Mr. Steele and all those that think this way.

Private corporations have a mandate to serve their shareholders. Government corporations (medicare, Amtrak, the Post Office) have a mandate to serve the people. You cannot serve two masters. This is a truth and I welcome anyone to present an argument to the contrary.

Unless the shareholders choose to serve the people or are mandated through contract, law, regulation, or force, they will serve their own self-interest. Does this mean that those in charge of the government programs behave in an altruistic way? No, they too look out for their own self interests as well. The difference here is the mandate. You cannot compare Medicare, Amtrak, and the Post Office to how a corporation would do it. They work under two distinct different principles.

So my question is this. Did Haliburton provide a better service to our troops then the government would have with government employees? Did they do it more efficiently and at less cost?

The idea that government is inefficient because it is government is a myth. Its problems are from lack of will and resolve, made worse by a party that believes itself to benefit more from its failure than from its success. If we are served better by corporations, then you would not hear any argument from me. We are not, simply because the corporation will always serve itself first over my needs. Give me the Post Office's foibles over Enron, Arthur Anderson, AIG, Bear Sterns, and GM any day.

So naively, I will try to put this argument to rest by showing how Mr. Steele is wrong. When FedEx needs to deliver a package to a remote rural address whom do they use? They use the Post Office. Why? Because the post office has a mandate to serve all addresses in the US, FedEx will only serve areas that are profitable - if there was not a Post Office FedEx would not deliver there unless the cost could be recouped. This is the same principle that awaits Medicare and Amtrak if we turn it over to the private sector.

For a little over $10.00 I can ship a box anywhere in the US by the Post Office. If you took FedEx and UPS out of the picture, this box would get delivered. However, if you take the Post Office away, many addresses would most likely no longer be served. Unless someone is willing to pay for it, corporations will only focus on endeavors that bring in the best rate of return. That is their mandate, and that is what they will do if you let them take over health care, the post office, or Amtrak. This corporate mandate serves you well if your are a shareholder, but it does not serve the people overall.

Let corporations take care of our wants and government take care of our needs.

Listening without hearing

Proof that people will yell support for anything, regardless of what was just said.

Borat at rodeo: "May George Bush drink the blood drink the blood of every single man, woman, and child of Iraq"

Crowd: Whoops and hollers in support.


Blue October - Argue with a tree - intro to James: "This is a song about hurting someones feelings so bad"

Crowd: Whoops and hollers in support.


NPR - Man to Rep Brian Baird (D-WA) at a health care town-hall meeting: "I am a marine, as a disabled veteran that served this country, I have kept my oath, do you ever intend to keep yours?"

Crowd: Whoops and hollers in support.

This was right after (but not caught on tape) the crowd was demanding to know if AmeriCorps volunteers were arming to take over the country and whether the health care plan would dictate how parents would raise their children.

$10 bucks says they whooped and hollered at that too.

Please sir, can I have some more?

More of Matt Friedeman’s christian fellowship:

“The battlefield now shifts from Capitol Hill to each congressional district, and we’re calling in reinforcements – YOU!” To help you in that effort, we’ve produced a short list of key concerns and questions, which are copied below. “

Point 5 - RATIONING CARE:

Question for your Congressmen: Will you oppose any healthcare reform bill that in any way limits my access to healthcare or medicines recommended by my doctor?

News Flash! Access to health care is rationed in the US already:

1. Preexisting illnesses not covered or denial of insurance altogether
2. Denial of certain treatments and procedures recommended
3. Non-coverage for certain treatments and procedures
4. Denial of payment for treatment and procedures already performed

When someone else is paying the bill they will, do, and can limit coverage regardless of what is recommended by the doctor. To believe that this is not currently taking place is to be terribly naive and really out of touch with our current system.

This “OMG they will ration my healthcare if Obama has his way” is ignoring the fact that health care is rationed all the time by insurance companies. If you saw the movie “The Incredibles” Bob Parr’s job at the insurance company was to deny claims. That was pre-Obama mind you.

Here is the rub, under our present system when a claim is denied, it benefits the insurance company and its shareholders (and indirectly policy holders). In Britain for example, when new/experimental care is denied for coverage it is done to allow the rest of society to have access to healthcare. So you need to decide who you want to help with the rationing, because rationing will happen UNLESS you are willing to pay for it. And since the other big complaint against healthcare reform is the cost, I will hazard a guess that cheap will be the soup d’jur.

So do you ration to increase insurance company profits or do you ration to provide coverage to all? You can’t have your damn cake and eat it too. Choose one.


Note: Apparently I was not the only one to think of Bob Parr. While searching for the name of his company I came across another blog that referenced it.

Onward christian shillmen....

After seeing my last post the wife asks me ”why are you looking for Christian radio stations?”

When I rent a car for work, I like to listen to public radio which is on the low end of the dial – yea the left side – so what of it! To get to the station 89.1, I have to go thru a few “christian” radio stations that have decided to take up residence where traditional public radio access has resided.

So a few days ago, while on my way to 89.1 I get stopped on 89.9

“We need to oppose Obamacare!”

“We need to show up at these town meetings and be vocal, let’s not be violent, that’s not how Christians should act…..”

“We need to……"

So there I was listening to this guy, on a christian radio station, asking myself the question who is “we”?

This christian talk show host is a guy named Matt Friedeman and apparently the “we” he is speaking to are folks that listen to christian radio stations, which I assume are Christians wanting to listen to a "family friendly" radio station (or guys like me just passing through).

There seems to be a general theme to the “talk” on these christian stations – that is it is almost always anti-Obama and anti-democrat. I am not sure exactly why opposing health care reform requires the work of Christians, unless when you ask yourself the question “What would Jesus do?” and you receive a divine answer of ”go forth and disrupt town-hall meetings!”

Under the guise of morality, the domain of the preacher/religious zealot, arguments can be made for and against any proposed law or government action. Guys like Friedeman should be arguing, like Jesus would have, for health care coverage that is not dependent on if one has a job that provides coverage and/or one is rich enough to pay for it.

I have read Mr. Friedeman’s opposition points to the healthcare debate, they are primarily based on a misunderstanding and/or fear, which in my opinion, is put out there to illicit apprehension which will lead to opposition.

Friedman and his ilk are either terribly naive, ignorant, misguided, or shills for those whose agenda is not one in the best interest of society as a whole. There are legitimate concerns that need to be addressed, but opposition just to oppose is not going to solve this problem.