Another wonderful night. Dan shared from the heart (good to see you back big guy), Dave joined the rotation with a nice gospel lesson and I led the prayer worship. Ok, well maybe Bob and Quentin actually led the praise. But I stepped out of my comfort zone again and sang "Come on in the Room". All right. Maybe sang is an overstatement. But I had the mike, and sound, well - noise, was coming through the golden pipes. And nobody left the room screaming (although one guy may have completely lost all hearing in one ear. We'll try to forget about that).
The spirit continues to lead the way. We're just helping out the best we can.
Brother Quentin shared with me that he thinks he only has about three weeks left in CFCF. Please join us in prayer that we stop worshipping with him on the inside and that we get the opportunity to worship with him somehow, some way, on the outside.
Father, please lift up brother Quentin. Allow his love for you to overpower any wrongs he may have done and give him the opportunity to share his message with others outside the walls of CFCF. Give him the strength to stay away from old, bad habits, and connect with other Christian brother's and sisters in order to give him a new, and better, life; one that revolves around you. Only through you can he protect himself from the influences of the enemy. We ask this in the name of Jesus. And may all God's Children say, "Amen".
Say a prayer for somebody today.
Tuesday, October 13, 2009
Sunday, October 11, 2009
Healthcare Reform
I received an e-mail a couple of days ago from my Congressman regarding healthcare. On the left side of the opening page was a testimony describing the death of a man that was denied health insurance because he had a history of heart disease. On the right side of the page was a question: Should insurance companies be allowed to deny people coverage based on pre-existing conditions such as pregnancy, cancer, high blood pressure, acne and asthma? The possible answers were: Yes, No and Undecided. Talk about a biased survey! It is difficult to read that story and then answer, “yes” to the question. As a Christian, I find it difficult to watch people suffer and do nothing about it. The problem here is that this is not necessarily a question that can be narrowed down to a yes or no answer.
I believe one of the struggles is attempting to differentiate between health insurance and health care. Insurance, by definition (1) means: “Coverage by a contract binding a party to indemnify another against a specified loss in return for premiums paid.” You make payments in order to cover yourself from potential future losses. If you were to come home and find your house burning down and called an insurance company asking for homeowners insurance against fire, you would be denied. That is a pre-existing condition no different from getting a diagnosis of a disease and then going to a medical insurance company asking for coverage. If we decide to force insurance companies to pay for such events, they would no longer be providing an insurance service. They would be providing subsidized health care. As individuals realized that they didn’t need to pay premiums in advance of medical issues, many would wait until medical care was needed and then obtain coverage. Without premiums, insurance companies would go out of business. Then the entire country would be forced to pay the extensive medical care as needed. Since most people would not be able to afford it, the government would step in at that point and begin paying for medical care. Despite our representative’s denials that they are attempting to create a socialist system, that is what would occur. Let’s go back to the dictionary (1):
Socialized medicine – n. A government regulated system for providing health care for all by means of subsidies derived from taxation.
While I’m on the healthcare subject (after all, that’s what I’m writing about today), I’d like to address another one of the arguments that has been bouncing back and forth between the sides of this debate. That is the issue of “death panels”. One side argues that they don’t want the government to have the power to make decisions regarding when somebody is worthy of receiving additional care, providing counseling on end of life decisions or when a choice needs to be made between extensive medical treatment and pain relief. The counter argument is that the faceless insurance companies are already making these decisions, so what is the difference? There is one major difference that I can see: If your insurance company makes a decision that you do not agree with, you have choices. You can file complaints with the company, with insurance regulators or with your elected government officials. You can proceed to find other ways to obtain the care you need. If it is the government making the same decisions, whom will you go to then? You most likely won’t be able to sue because of the Federal governments protection against litigation. Depending on how the law ends up being written it might even end up being illegal for you to find other ways to obtain the care you desire. I would rather have the system that offers more opportunity and choice.
I’m not saying that the health care system we have is perfect. There are definitely areas that can be reformed. If a covered individual loses their insurance (loss of job, disability, etc) and then can’t get coverage because they have a pre-existing condition, there should be some option out there. Additional protection from decisions made to deny you coverage should be established to give individuals a right to a timely hearing before some kind of regulatory commission. Tort reform could lower the costs that the medical system incurs. Other cost cutting measures, by people much more knowledgeable than me, could be researched and addressed.
We currently have a great healthcare system that a significant number of Americans enjoy. Let’s tighten it up. Let’s find ways to make it better, and fairer. But why replace the known with the unknown? Why make a switch to a socialized system? Why change to a hastily created system that could end up being a disaster?
Say a prayer for somebody today.
(1) from the American Heritage College Dictionary
I believe one of the struggles is attempting to differentiate between health insurance and health care. Insurance, by definition (1) means: “Coverage by a contract binding a party to indemnify another against a specified loss in return for premiums paid.” You make payments in order to cover yourself from potential future losses. If you were to come home and find your house burning down and called an insurance company asking for homeowners insurance against fire, you would be denied. That is a pre-existing condition no different from getting a diagnosis of a disease and then going to a medical insurance company asking for coverage. If we decide to force insurance companies to pay for such events, they would no longer be providing an insurance service. They would be providing subsidized health care. As individuals realized that they didn’t need to pay premiums in advance of medical issues, many would wait until medical care was needed and then obtain coverage. Without premiums, insurance companies would go out of business. Then the entire country would be forced to pay the extensive medical care as needed. Since most people would not be able to afford it, the government would step in at that point and begin paying for medical care. Despite our representative’s denials that they are attempting to create a socialist system, that is what would occur. Let’s go back to the dictionary (1):
Socialized medicine – n. A government regulated system for providing health care for all by means of subsidies derived from taxation.
While I’m on the healthcare subject (after all, that’s what I’m writing about today), I’d like to address another one of the arguments that has been bouncing back and forth between the sides of this debate. That is the issue of “death panels”. One side argues that they don’t want the government to have the power to make decisions regarding when somebody is worthy of receiving additional care, providing counseling on end of life decisions or when a choice needs to be made between extensive medical treatment and pain relief. The counter argument is that the faceless insurance companies are already making these decisions, so what is the difference? There is one major difference that I can see: If your insurance company makes a decision that you do not agree with, you have choices. You can file complaints with the company, with insurance regulators or with your elected government officials. You can proceed to find other ways to obtain the care you need. If it is the government making the same decisions, whom will you go to then? You most likely won’t be able to sue because of the Federal governments protection against litigation. Depending on how the law ends up being written it might even end up being illegal for you to find other ways to obtain the care you desire. I would rather have the system that offers more opportunity and choice.
I’m not saying that the health care system we have is perfect. There are definitely areas that can be reformed. If a covered individual loses their insurance (loss of job, disability, etc) and then can’t get coverage because they have a pre-existing condition, there should be some option out there. Additional protection from decisions made to deny you coverage should be established to give individuals a right to a timely hearing before some kind of regulatory commission. Tort reform could lower the costs that the medical system incurs. Other cost cutting measures, by people much more knowledgeable than me, could be researched and addressed.
We currently have a great healthcare system that a significant number of Americans enjoy. Let’s tighten it up. Let’s find ways to make it better, and fairer. But why replace the known with the unknown? Why make a switch to a socialized system? Why change to a hastily created system that could end up being a disaster?
Say a prayer for somebody today.
(1) from the American Heritage College Dictionary
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
