A Touching Scene—An Important Principle

Yesterday, Nancy and I saw a heart-touching scene in a church we attend in the inner-city slums of Cleveland. A mother and her 14-year-old Down’s Syndrome son were worshipping with us.  The boy was trying to hold up his hands in worship while a song was being sung. He did the best he could to sing the song; but he could not get the words right. Finally, fatigue got the best of him; and he lowered his hands, placed his head on his mother’s shoulder and put his arms around her waist.

When the song ended, she put her arms around him and kissed him.

There are many people who would abort a baby if they find out that he has Down’s Syndrome. That is a grave mistake. Down’s children are loving, affectionate, kind, and generous. They are an inspiration to parents who will consider loving them in return. Of course, they will never become a CEO of the Bank of America; but…Down’s children have their own contribution to make. For one thing, they bring out the very best of characteristics in their parents, i.e., love, consideration, and kindness—these characteristics are also distributed to brothers and sisters who help with their care.

God’s strength is demonstrated in weakness. “But God chose what is foolish in the world to shame the wise; God chose what is weak in the world to shame the strong; God chose what is low and despised in the world, even things that are not, to bring to nothing things that are, so that no human being might boast in the presence of God. And because of him you are in Christ Jesus, who became to us wisdom from God, righteousness and sanctification and redemption, so that, as it is written, ‘Let the one who boasts, boast in the Lord.’” (1 Corinthians 1:27-31)

“Healthcare Reform?” I’ll say so! (But not for the better.)

We are probably all sick of hearing about the failure of ObamaCare; but I am constrained to continue blogging on the subject, because it is of such imminent importance to each of us. This law is the most mistaken piece of legislation to have come down the pike at us in my lifetime. It had some good intentions behind it; but its unintended consequences far outweigh its good qualities. And…I am afraid that the difficulties with the registration procedures on the internet are just the beginning of more problems down the road.

I am afraid we are headed for lost jobs, an economy increasingly made up of part-time workers, higher health spending, a decline in medical innovation and medical devise production, and more difficulty retaining desirable health insurance and care.

Past polling going back to the 1940’s have consistently indicated that Americans have believed desired a system of “national health insurance;" but they have never indicated that they would be willing to pay adequate amounts out-of-pocket money to get it.

President Obama has promised the American people that the Affordable Care Act (ACA) would insure 45million uninsured people without costing middle class families one penny in new taxes; and that paying for it would not add one dime to the federal deficit. He even said that a typical family of four would save $2500 yearly in premiums before the end of his first term in office.

The Congregational Budget Office, on the other hand has calculated that by 2023, ObamaCare will have imposed over $1 trillion in new taxes. $318 billion of this amount will come from taxes aimed primarily at singles earning >$200,000 yearly and married earning >$250,000. But the remainder of the increased tax money will come in a variety of forms that will hit both middle and low income people.

When all is said and done, the folks the president assured would not see taxes go up a dime to bankroll health reform will shoulder close to 70% of ObamaCare’s tax burden.

President Obama has promised that this new law will provide health care coverage for 45 million people. But…the CBO calculates that by 2023, there will remain 31 million uninsured—a far cry from the president’s promise!

Another Obama promise: “We’ll lower premiums by up to $2500 for a typical family per year….We’ll do it by the end of my first term as president of the United States.” (June 5, 2008) But…according to the Kaiser Family Foundation/Employer Health Benefits Survey, average premiums for family coverage during that period increased from $13,375/year to $16,531/year.

The President has promised that spending on health care will “not add one dime to the deficit.” However, his own Treasury Department has calculated that federal spending, as a share of GDP will rise by more than 40% by year 2085. Rising health entitlements will account for every penny of that increase!

President Obama has said, “I will not sign a plan that adds one dime to our deficits.” (September 2, 2009) Former CBO director Douglas Holtz-Eakin has calculated that “the new reform law will raise the deficit by more than $500 billion during the 1^st 10 years and nearly$1.5 trillion in the next decade.”

President Obama has promised that “If you like your doctor, you will be able to keep your doctor, period.” (June 15, 2009) But…recently, we have seen health insurance companies one after another dropping coverage of clients because of ObamaCare’s requirements. For example:

1)   Florida Blue is dropping 300,000 policy holders.

2)   Highmark in Pittsburgh is dropping 20% of its individual market customers.
3)   Kaiser Permanente of California is dropping 160,000 patients.
4)   Independence Blue Cross Philadelphia is dropping 45% of its customers.
5)   Kaiser in Ohio (where Nancy and I get our health care coverage) is going completely out of business and selling all its coverage and business to Healthspan Integrated Care. (These figures come from FOX News Special Report of 10/23/13)

Well, so much for that promise!

(Much of this blog post is a redaction of an article in The Weekly Standard of 10-21-13. The Rest is from my own experience.)

The Changed Face of Doctoring in America

Nancy and I have lived in the Cleveland, Ohio area for 2½ years in a retirement community. Over that time period, we have made 5 visits to doctors; and we have seen 4 different doctors. One visit was to an emergency room for a sore throat. The other visits were to primary care doctors to whom we went for general check-ups.

At each of those “general check-up” visits, we requested physical exams; but we were refused that service each time. The doctors only talked briefly to each of us about our present health situation and ordered lab tests. None of them ever laid a hand on us. One of the doctors charged Medicare $250 for each of us. All the other visits cost us $30 for each co-pay.

My, how things have changed!! When I was in the practice of primary care, a patient who came to me requesting a general check-up got a full physical exam including a check of vital signs (blood pressure, pulse, height, weight) a mirror exam of the larynx, an exam of the retina after dilatation of the pupils, and careful examination of the neck, chest, breasts, heart, abdomen, groin (pelvic and rectal), extremities, all lymph bearing areas, limbs and joints, and a brief neurologic exam.

A routine medical history included an interview of the present problem and review of the past history, including previous surgery, medications, illnesses, occupation, travel, recreational activities, family problems, and habits.

I am aware of the fact that laboratory tests are much better these days than they were when I was in practice (up until 7 years ago). It is possible to find a lot more disease by laboratory tests today than it was then, also. But…I still think that present day doctors miss some important things when they do not exercise their ability to find health problems by using classic tools of history and physical exam.

The Problems in America Are Just What Americans Want!

As most of you know, who read my blog post, I am no fan of President Obama. But I am having second thoughts about that attitude. I have come to the conclusion that the things I find fault with in the Obama years has less to do with President Obama, himself, and mostly to do with the Americans, themselves. I assume that Americans have voted for and obtained the things they value most. For example:

1. We Americans have expressed a value for immediate benefits in exchange for long term safety and prosperity. Our welfare state affinities have shown that.
2. We have shown that we do not mind spending money we don’t have up front without counting the cost of deficit spending down the road. As an example of this, the Office of Management and Budget for the White House in its historical tables points out of the last 73 years, our national budget has been in deficit 62 of those years. The deficit problem is getting worse and worse; and still, our politicians are screaming for more deficit money. Our national deficit is now about $17 trillion; and $6.2 trillion of that $17 trillion has been added in the past 4½ years. But we must admit that seems to be exactly what the American population wants.
3. In the field of foreign policy, American prestige is at a low point in recent history. We try to appease our enemies and abuse our allies. We do not keep our promises. Our people do not want to fight for freedom of oppressed peoples around the globe and think that bad things cannot happen to us on our homeland—we seem to think we, too, are “too big to fail.”
4. We put politicians in office who do such things as seducing the office girls. I assume that the morals of our politicians match the morals of the American peoples, ourselves. That is the kind of people we elect to office.
5. Americans live in a country that was founded on Christian principles by Christian settlers who were willing to pay heavily for freedom; but now Christian principles are derided or ignored. We give far more consideration to Islamic values in our country than we do to the principles of our Christian heritage. That is all done at the altar of “diversity.”  

I suppose all the above sounds cynical; but I don’t think it is cynicism. I think it is just the true facts about our country and its people, in general. If we would only wake up and get some backbone into our character, we could undo all the harm that is going on. But…it will take effort and work. I believe we can do it.

 

 

           

How ObamaCare Wrecks the Work Ethic

Major subsidies and regulations intended to help the poor and unemployed were changed in more than a dozen ways after 2007. Economist Casey B. Mulligan, Professor of Economics at the University of Chicago, has analyzed the present economic situation of the United States in his recent book, The Redistribution Recession.

He argues that many of these changes were reasonable reactions to economic events, with the intention of helping people endure the recession, but they also reduced incentives for people to work and businesses to hire. He measures the startling changes in implicit tax rates that resulted from a labyrinth of new and expanded “social safety net” programs. He also reveals how low income borrowers can expect their earnings to affect the amount that lenders will forgive in debt renegotiation. In other words, if you earn more, creditors will be less likely to negotiate your debts downward. This has acted as a massive implicit tax on earning. He explains how redistribution in the forms of subsidies, taxes and minimum-wage laws profoundly altered the path of the economy and made the recent recession one of the deepest and longest in decades.

Redistribution, or subsidies and regulations intended to help the poor, unemployed, and financially distressed, have changed in many ways since the onset of the recent financial crisis. The unemployed, for instance, can collect benefits longer and can receive bonuses, health subsidies, and tax deductions, and millions more people have became eligible for food stamps.

Professor Mulligan argues that while many of these changes were intended to help people endure economic events and boost the economy, they had the unintended consequence of deepening, if not causing, the recession. By dulling incentives for people to maintain their own living standards, redistribution created employment losses. Mulligan explains how elevated tax rates and binding minimum-wage laws reduced labor usage, consumption, and investment, and how they actually increased labor productivity. He points to entire industries that slashed payrolls while experiencing little or no decline in production or revenue, documenting the disconnect between employment and production that occurred during the recession.

This whole scenario seems to indicate that Keynesian economics is a bankrupt theory and the massive "stimulus" bill in 2009 made the economy worse, not better?

Mr. Mulligan's thesis is that, in addition to thwarting recovery with unprecedented levels of spending, the Obama administration and Congress have made unemployment much higher than it might otherwise be. To take an obvious example, Congress increased the cost of labor—and thus decreased the number of jobs—by raising the minimum wage. (In fact, it has done so three times since 2007.)

On a grander scale, Mr. Obama and his policy advisers have added to government benefits in various ways—in essence paying would-be workers for staying out of the workforce. Mr. Mulligan estimates that about half the precipitous 2007-11 decline in the labor-force-participation rate, as well as in hours worked, can be put down to such misguided generosity.

By far the biggest source of the decline in work, Mr. Mulligan says, has been much easier eligibility rules for unemployment insurance, food stamps and housing aid. When subsidies for consumer-loan forgiveness are added in, government transfers almost tripled after 2007.

The Obama administration's theory is that government-supplied benefits will lead to more consumer spending and thus stimulate the economy. Mr. Mulligan, subjecting labor statistics to detailed scrutiny, shows, on the contrary, that government "help" can in fact be counterproductive.

The annual value in average benefits for not working rose from $10,000 in 2007to $16,000 in 2009. Such increases were inversely related to changes in average hours worked. On average, Americans worked 120 fewer hours in 2009 than in 2007—the largest contraction in work effort of any recession since the Depression. Since 2009, work hours and labor-force participation have remained at record lows even though the recession officially ended in June 2009.

It should shock no one that disincentives to work—e.g., two years of unemployment-insurance benefits instead of the usual six months—have made the unemployment problem worse. Mr. Mulligan stresses that, at a certain point, relief programs create a disincentive to work.

It is not only the unemployed who are affected. People working part-time or performing jobs that might allow for extra hours (and income) are discouraged from seeking more work. They easily grasp that, by working more, they will lose benefits and face the possibility of paying more in taxes. In short, the penalty for logging an extra hour on the job can exceed the income it brings in: If you make $30,000 a year and your pay from added hours rises to $33,000, you may well lose more than $3,000—the combined effect of additional taxes paid and foregone government subsidies. There are plenty of such cases, where, for low-income Americans, the marginal tax rate—as defined by taxes paid plus benefits lost on an additional dollar of income—can exceed 100%.

The ongoing consequences of added subsidies for the unemployed in 2010-12 explain why the labor market is not even close to a full recovery four years after the recession began.

All of the above have confirmed that higher payments for not working have made labor more expensive.

In 2009, it was argued that the primary problem with the economy was a reduction in demand—i.e., a lack of consumer spending—which caused businesses to cut production and lay off workers. However, during the worst of the 2008-09 troubles, most sectors of the business community increased their use of production inputs other than labor hours. “Production inputs” includes, mainly, the use of machines to do the work of former laborers. Of course, machines do not pay taxes; neither are they consumers. As a result, the use of machines and “other production inputs” do not help the economic situation of our country.

In short, businesses drove up productivity by shedding workers. Why? "Businesses perceive labor to be more expensive than it was before the recession began," Mr. Mulligan writes. The reason for the added cost was that easier requirements for benefits—even as the government was pumping "stimulus" money into the economy—unwittingly reduced the supply of workers. As output began to rise, firms hired fewer workers. National unemployment has stayed so high for so long because of the government's policies, not in spite of them.

By the way, Mr. Mulligan doesn't challenge the claim that a surge in unemployment benefits, food stamps and other subsidies may have been desirable to prevent hunger or severe poverty for out-of-luck families or unemployable people traumatized by the recession. He simply notes that, though increasing subsidies may be compassionate in the short term, it comes with costs in the long term that eventually cause more hardship rather than less.

(This blog post was redacted from a book review by Steven Moore in the Wall Street Journal of 11/4/2012.)

 

 

           

Pope Francis Reaches out to Atheists

The Pope, spiritual leader of 1.2 billion Catholics, has struck a surprisingly conciliatory tone towards atheists and agnostics, saying that God will "forgive" them as long as they behave morally and live according to their consciences. He recently wrote this message in an Italian daily newspaper, La Republica. The Pope wrote: “The question for those who do not believe in God is to follow their own conscience. Sin, even for a non-believer, is when one goes against one's conscience.” “To listen and to follow your conscience means that you understand the difference between good and evil.” He said that the "mercy of God has no limits" and encompasses even non-believers....”  http://bit.ly/14FTIeq

The Pope's reaching out to atheists echoes a homily he delivered in May, when he said that even atheists could be welcomed into heaven. That declaration caused consternation among Vatican officials, with a spokesman later appearing to backtrack on the Pope's remarks, saying that people who do not believe in God "cannot be saved".

This message has been the theme song for liberal Protestants for years; but I never thought I would hear it from a Pope!

The trouble with the message is that if everyone, including atheists, were admitted to heaven upon physical death, then there would have been no reason for Christ to come and die on a cross—unless, of course, He particularly enjoyed being crucified. There is no place in Scripture or in classical Christian and Catholic doctrine where a clean conscience is a reason for being saved to eternal life. It is good to have a clear conscience; but Christ made it painfully clear that one’s conscience does not necessarily indicate that a person is okay with Christ and able to take advantage of His atoning sacrifice.  

“I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.” John 14:6 “And there is salvation in on one else, for there is no other name under heaven, given among men by which we must be saved.” Acts 4:12 “But to all who did receive Him, who believed in His name, He gave the right to become children of God.” John 1:12. “Truly, truly, unless one is born again, he cannot see the Kingdom of God.” John 3:3 “If you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe with your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved.” Romans 10:9

On the other hand, “Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God.” John 3:18 “And to whom did He swear that they would not enter His rest, but to those who were disobedient? So we see that they were unable to enter because of unbelief.” Hebrews 3:18-19

Pope Frances and liberal Protestants are wrong.

Projected Weakness

From the viewpoint of an ordinary American and former military service member, I must say that I am dismayed at the apparent foolishness of our nation’s foreign policies. I have never, since the administration of Jimmy Carter, seen such ill-advised foreign policy, apparently designed to show America as a weak and impotent nation. It is the way foreign countries see us, too. Read the editorial comment printed below from a prominent French newspaper:

“I’m talking about the hesitant, timorous America that we have seen through the incredible sequence in which Secretary of State John Kerry’s wise, forceful speech was juxtaposed against Barack Obama’s strangely indecisive remarks—taking seriatim and almost simultaneously every conceivable geopolitical position. I’m talking about an America willing itself into weakness. A quiescent (i.e., sitting still) America that Mr. Putin with his astounding lecture on democratic morals published in the New York Times, has allowed himself the luxury of humiliating on her home field.” (Bernard–Henri Lévy)

That’s how foreign nations view America’s foreign policy!

The Western World has been famous for making brainless agreements with despots. Appeasement has often been the watchword ever since the foolish agreement at Munich in 1938 when British Prime Minister, Neville Chamberlain, along with French and Italian “diplomats” ceded large parts of Czechoslovakia to Nazi Germany in exchange for promises of no military invasion of that country. Chamberlain went home proclaiming “peace within our time!” Within a few months after that Munich agreement, Nazi armies marched into Czechoslovakia—World War II was well underway!

“So it is with many negotiations between democrats and tyrants: When there is a deal, it usually winds up being a trade between the theoretical and the tangible, the immediate concession and the long-term promise, the paper agreement and the territorial prize.” (Wall Street Journal 9/24/13 page A17)

Dealing with tyrants by appeasement methods has never worked. And today, we see President Obama saying soothing words to the American people—words that are not backed up with strength. Diplomacy without military back up is not worth the words with which it is spoken. We are seeing with our very eyes, our government transforming Bashar Assad from a war criminal and enemy of humanity (in the words of U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon) into a legitimate negotiating partner. Look soon to see him presented as if he were a cooperative and responsible world leader.

We have fools for leaders and diplomats!