“Am I my brother’s keeper?” is the question that Cain asked before he was cast out for killing his brother Abel over a petty argument. I hear an argument very much akin to this question in the debate of Healthcare Reform today when it is suggested that the government be involved in providing healthcare for American citizens. Currently, America has the most expensive healthcare system in the world, and does not offer a level of quality that would justify the expense. Among six countries studied for various aspects of their healthcare system, America was last or next to last in all categories, and was the only country that did not have access to universal healthcare. From this information, one could infer that healthcare, and the care of your fellow man, should not be a for-profit industry, instead falling under the purview of the government as a basic civil right.

If opponents of nationalized healthcare of all types are to be believed, the government does not belong in healthcare, or other areas as would inhibit the basic freedoms that an individual holds. This is a valid argument, but it has become more a question of which situation will cause more damage to the average person. With premiums for health insurance rising, and the number of things that a policy will cover decreasing, (not to mention the qualifiers put on which prescriptions are covered, what one has to do to qualify for a particular prescription, as well as the price of medicine going through the roof), I feel that it is more difficult for the average person to continue to pay some of these costs, and my personal finances along with many others that I know will evince this belief.

I truly believe that the government should be involved in how an individual lives their day to day life as little as possible, but there are also certain responsibilities the government is set forth to provide to allow citizens to live the fullest life possible. It is high time healthcare becomes one of these issues.

One of the most common arguments I hear against nationalizing healthcare is it would increase taxes, and that many feel it would be unfair to have to pay into a program that would provide medical care to others. This is very much like the situation referred to in the opening paragraph with Cain and Abel. Were this argument analyzed, it would boil down to one individual considering himself or herself to be more important than anyone else, and showing no thought to anyone but his or herself. This goes against the grain of any moral and/or ethical teaching that I have ever seen.

If one were to use the Bible as a guideline for creating their personal ethical code, then looking at the Parables of Jesus reveals multiple instances when Jesus points out that it is better to help others than to help one’s self. Throughout the Bible, there are stories that imply that the good of the masses is more important than any individual.

Under the Declaration of Independence, three inalienable rights are listed as inherent to the human condition: “Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.” To continue in our current condition in healthcare destroys the ability to “pursue happiness” when an individual is unable to pay for treatment. I work with a lady who has a 12-year-old with a severely debilitating disease and constantly needs to visit specialists at UVA Hospital. Over the course of this child’s life, her parents have incurred close to $1 million in debt after insurance payments, forcing them to file bankruptcy and lose their house and any other assets they may have owned. They are still incurring bills that they find difficult to pay today because of the sheer amount of money required to care for her. They are unable to receive any Federal Aid whatsoever; because their yearly income falls above whatever line has been determined as the cutoff point for Medicaid benefits.

Unable to do anything about these bills, they are subject to judgments, garnishments, and various other forms of debt collection until their daughter turns 18, at which point she will qualify for Medicaid. This medical burden requires that they work overtime, and spend all their time simply trying to find ways to stay afloat, and their circumstances are becoming more common. When an individual’s ability to pursue the happiness referenced above is compromised so dearly, then it is time to step in and take action to prevent further injustice.

Until the population as a whole acknowledges that rising costs and a lack of regulation are allowing the healthcare industry to spin out of control, it will only become more difficult for the average person to receive care.

Many want to portray this healthcare dilemma as a financial decision, based upon principles such as capitalism, but I disagree. This is entirely a moral dilemma, and until this is recognized I’m not sure anything will get better.

This situation occurs today in care facilities across the country and is saddening, but true. When the decision is made to accept one patient over another because the care facility can bill more expensive services to that patient’s insurance, something is wrong. The government was originally created to provide “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” for its people. It’s time to guarantee “life.”

Let me make a few things clear. I am not a reporter. I am a commentator, like Bill Maher, Jon Stewart, Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity. None of these gentlemen simply tell you what’s going on, they put their own spin on it, and tell you what they think is wrong or right about something. That is what I’ll be doing for this paper, and I don’t want anyone to think otherwise. I’m also going to be pushing the idea that there is a lot wrong with America today. Don’t think for a moment that I am un-patriotic, and do not love my country. I love America and the ideals upon which it was founded with a passion that few can seem to comprehend or understand, evinced by the conversations I tend to have with the average person. Most people just don’t seem to care, and are focused on living their life day-to-day, above all else.

Today, if you don’t agree with someone in a discussion concerning ideology, whether it is
religious or political, the discussion tends to degenerate from a calm, impassioned discourse to
harsh words and perhaps even violence pretty quickly. While passions will flare, and that is a
part of life that is to be understood and forgiven, to journey towards a hatred of your fellow man due to what color their skin may be; whether they attend a church, mosque, or synagogue; how they dress, or some other idea they hold true that differs from your own is simply ludicrous.

This is only exacerbated by ignorance and apathy, which are the key ingredients to provoke one individual against another. I saw this characteristic of human nature exploited during last year’s election, against President Obama, and it sickened me. The claims that he was a Muslim, that he swore Oath of Office upon the Quran, that he was a terrorist, or that he was friends with terrorists, are preposterous, and yet no-one I knew really took the time to look it up, and find out for sure. Many would receive an email from an anonymous source, with supposed “information and facts” about then President Elect Obama, and it was treated as gospel. Never mind 5 minutes of research on Wikipedia disproved many things that were said, if it was in their email, it had to be true, right? Right…

Let’s get on to the reason for writing this article. I want to introduce you all to an idea called “Loyal Opposition.” For those who have never heard of it, Loyal Opposition is defined as follows:

· The concept that one can be opposed to the actions of the government or ruling party of the day without being opposed to the constitution of the political system.

· This means that there is a political party that opposes the current administrations views, while not opposing their right to rule. During WWII, when Democratic President Roosevelt was in office, the Republicans were considered to be the loyal opposition. They may not agree with how he did things, but they understood that he was duly elected, and did not try to oppose his right to run the country and make decisions as President.

Where has this concept gone, I ask you? Why can we not co-exist, and function on a day-to-day basis without feeling the need to attack differing points of view?

“Divide and Conquer” has stood the test of time, and been proven on various fields of battle. If we cannot stand together, as one nation, and one people, then it will be far too easy for outside forces that plan no good for Americans to manipulate us, and turn us against each other, therefore making it much easier to accomplish their agendas.

]]> http://www.nr.edu/kr/?feed=rss2&p=981 0 http://www.nr.edu/kr/?p=647 http://www.nr.edu/kr/?p=647#comments Wed, 28 Jan 2009 12:35:25 +0000 Joseph Rogers http://www2.nr.edu/kr/?p=647 Please welcome Joseph Rogers as our new political opinion columnist!

Since we passed from one presidential administration to the other on January 20th, let’s look back at what occurred over the past eight years and reflect on what I hope to see in the next four to eight years. President Obama ran on the platform of Hope and Change, and while both are needed desperately, they are rather vague and non-specific concepts. As a result, President Obama’s implementation of these concepts will most likely not engender him as much adulation and respect as the discussion of them did.

I must admit that while I was not a fan of President Bush, during his eight years he has accomplished a large amount of work. After September 11, 2001 he had the American people united behind him in a way that has not been seen since Pearl Harbor was bombed. Important legislation was passed multiple times far more quickly than many feel it should have been as a result, and many were unhappy with him and his time in office. The most recent example is the $700 billion “bailout” that was fast tracked through Congress with little or no Congressional oversight as to how the money will actually be spent by Henry Paulson, Secretary of the Treasury. Originally intended to cover bad debt that was taken on by large banks, it has been used to pay for 1.6 Billion dollars in Executive Bonuses according to a study done by the Associated Press. When Congress was disinclined to bailout the Big 3 Automakers (GM, Ford, and Chrysler), then Paulson gave them the requested money out of the original bailout funds. This is an application of funds that had not been considered to that point.

President Obama has not had enough time in office for me to make a fair judgment, yet I notice many things I consider characteristics of greatness about him. George Washington chose his cabinet members from men whom he knew would at times disagree with him. Rather than loyalty, the Father of the Presidency valued independent thought in his advisers, thereby demonstrating his willingness to see from all sides. The G.W. Bush administration officials were mostly chosen on the point of whether or not they would have been unswervingly loyal. When Joe Biden was selected and people discussed his tendency to talk out of turn and to speak when he would do better to be quiet, I was reminded of why President Washington chose his own advisers; not because they would agree with him, but because he could count on them to give multiple perspectives. Throughout his campaign President Obama handled himself with a level of class and self control that I found impressive.

There are those who question his choice of advisors and cabinet officials, most notably leaving Robert Gates in his capacity as Secretary of Defense. One can understand why this might cause some consternation, as many of his advisors are former Bush administration. I feel the need to point out two advisors to Mr. Obama had stated that President Obama intended to shut down Guantanamo Bay military base if not the first day he took office, then very soon afterwards, which he has already proven. Examining the degree of trouble that America is experiencing economically, militarily, generally, it seems that President Obama has chosen to leave as much infrastructure and as many current officials in place so as to cause less upheaval when the policy changes begin. Rather than new appointees having to gain the respect of those they work with and for, established operators that people know and already work for would be in place. If I myself were trying to captain a sinking ship, I would rather my employees be focused on fixing the problems with the ship, as opposed to dealing with petty ego issues, and the drama that always comes when working for someone new.

I ask you all to give President Obama the chance that he has earned to run our country. I have been thoroughly impressed by his intelligence, his willingness to deliberate and discuss things rather than make decisions off the cuff, and if necessary, to re-think whether he made the correct decision in the first place. Deliberation, contrary to what many seem to think, is not a vice.

He is a Constitutional Scholar from the Harvard School of Law, and a newcomer to Washington DC and as such, he has great potential to shake things up and make it work. I want you all to know that no, I was not happy with many things I saw go on in the Bush administration, but I am not going to follow President Obama blindly and neither should you. I will be keeping as critical an eye on him as I did President Bush. I also want you to know that I truly believe if we all pull together, and work for a common goal, then “Yes, We Can” heal our country and restore our standing internationally.

God Bless America,
Joseph Rogers