Obama and Gay Marriage

President Obama attended the annual dinner of the Human Rights Campaign, a gay rights group. He promised those in attendance that he would end the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy currently in effect in the U.S. military. The President also called on the Congress to repeal DOMA, the Defense of Marriage Act passed by Congress in September of 1996.

The DOMA law has 2 purposes. One is to define marriage as a legal union exclusively between one man and one woman. The second purpose allows a state to refuse to recognize the "marriage" of same sex individuals from another state. Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, Vermont and Maine currently allow "same sex marriage," with New Hampshire's "gay marriage" laws going into effect in January, 2010. California has also just joined with New York State and Washington DC in recognizing such "marriages" from other jurisdictions.

In September, 2009, the Respect for Marriage Act bill was submitted with 91 sponsors into the House of Representatives. This bill would repeal DOMA law. Some on the left claim that it would not force states to accept "same sex marriages" from other states, but if you read the bill, that is exactly what it will do. It strikes down the portion of the DOMA law that gives states the right to refuse to recognize "same sex marriage" from other states. Twenty-nine states have Constitutional amendments that define marriage as between a man and a woman. I believe that if DOMA is repealed then the federal government will eventually force all states to recognize "same sex marriages."

Now many in the homosexual community declare that Jesus never has anything to say about homosexuality, but in Matthew 19:4-6, Jesus defined marriage by quoting from the Genesis 1:27 and Genesis 2:24: "Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator made them male and female, and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh? So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate." It seems to me that by defining marriage has between a man and a woman, there is no room left for "same sex marriages."

Who is this Creator? John 1:1-18 declares who the creator is, Christ Jesus. John 1:1-3 - In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being. John 1:14 - And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth. John 1:17 - For the Law was given through Moses; grace and truth were realized through Jesus Christ.

President Obama has stated that he reads the Bible every day. I wonder why he would dismiss these verses and others that speak about homosexuality. Is he, like so many others, deciding what is true in the Bible and what is not true? Do we have the right to make a distinction about which parts of the Bible we will follow and which parts we will dismiss? The answer is no, we do not have the right to judge the Bible. Jesus is the Word, therefore the Creator and He has declared that marriage is between a man and a woman. I pray that President Obama will heed the words of our Creator, Christ Jesus, and stop promoting a life style that goes against the laws of nature, as defined by God.

Misconceptions About Health Care Inside and Outside of America

Until recently, I was under the impression that all of the other developed countries of the world only had communist style socialized medicine. I thought that they were all owned and operated by the government. No private hospitals or doctors. No private insurance. Bureaucrats making medical decisions. The perception given by many is that what we have here in America is the best in the world and any system other than ours is a disaster. All you ever hear is horror stories, long waits for medical treatment, antiquated equipment, people suffering and dying due to a lack of funding, old people being refused treatment. You have heard the stories and probably most are true. But are these stories the norm for the average person or are they the exception?

In his book, "The Healing of America: A Global Quest for Better, Cheaper, and Fairer Health Care", T.R. Reid has gone around the world researching health care. Through his research and travels he is able to provide a window into the different health care systems that each country uses. He details the four major types of systems being used around the world today.

The Beveridge model was developed in Great Britain, and is used in Spain, Italy, Cuba, and most of Scandinavia. This is government run health care funded by taxes. No health insurance companies or private hospitals. Most doctors are government employees, but some are private and all are paid by the government. In America, the members of Congress have their health care needs meet through this model, as do the Armed Forces and the VA.

Originally developed in Germany, the Bismark model is also used in France, Switzerland, Belgium, and Japan. This system uses private doctors, hospitals and insurance. To control cost, the government regulates the medical community and the insurance companies, which are non-profit. If you have employer provided insurance or you purchase insurance privately, you are using a form of this model. Instead of the government regulating medical cost, your insurance company does and makes a profit for its investors.

Canada, Taiwan, and South Korea use the National Health Insurance model which has elements of both the Beveridge and Bismark models. Health care is provided by private doctors and hospitals, but the government is the insurance company and the citizens pay premiums. This is the system used by those who receive Medicare or Medicaid. By the way, the name Medicare originated in Canada.

Most poor countries have the Out-of-Pocket model because they do not have the ability to provide any of the others. This is the model that Americans without insurance must live with. According to the Census Bureau (Link) the percentage of people without insurance in America is 15.4% or a little over 46 million. It is not that these people do not receive any health care, its just that when they are seriously ill then the tax payer ends up paying much of the bill.

As you can see, the United States uses a variety of systems to provide health care. If these other countries are providing health care for all of their citizens, why can't this be done in America? America already has some "Socialized Health Care," through the Beveridge and the National Health Insurance models. Why does America spend more for its health care every year than any other country, 16-17% of GDP, but not everyone is covered? For those who say that the status quo is fine, how would you provide health care to the 46 million who have no insurance? Isn't someone already paying for any health care that the uninsured receive? Anyone who is seriously sick can go to the emergency room and receive services, this is mandated by Federal Law. But that is a very expensive way to provide coverage.

To me these are some of the questions that need to be asked. I hope that this has been helpful to you as the debate on health care in America continues.

Health Care Debate

President Obama spoke to a joint session of Congress last night about the health care legislation that is moving through Congress. He outlined what he would like the legislation to contain. There is justifiably great debate over the cost of new health care legislation and the impact that it would have on our national debt and the economy. Many fear that to provide health care for every American will come at too great of an expense and that as a result our taxes will spiral out of control and/or the quality of our health care will go down. A large segment of our society truly fear what is commonly referred to as "Socialized Medicine."

We have all heard the horror stories of long waits and people dying while waiting to receive treatment for their ailment. I remember reading a story about how a Canadian woman who went into labor prematurely with major complications had to be airlifted to a nearby hospital in the U.S. This story seemed to dramatically underscore the problem with "Socialized Medicine." But, upon further investigation it was revealed that the Canadian hospital was perfectly capable of caring for the woman and her child, but their neo-natal unit was full to capacity and that in order to provide the best care for them both, they were moved to the U.S. hospital. The point is that often times the stories that we hear about unacceptable healthcare in other countries with "Socialized Medicine" are not always as dramatic as they first seem.

The President outlined many aspects of this health care reform that he would like to see included in the upcoming bill. Republicans need to stay engaged in the process and not just opt out because they do not get to showcase all of their ideas about health care. The Democrats won control of the Congress and the White House and now they have the opportunity to try things their way. Democrats need to remember that with leadership comes responsibility. They have a responsibility to make sure that the concerns of all Americans are addressed and not to run rough shod over the opposition, just because they can. Both parties need to remember that they represent all Americans and that we sent them to Washington to serve the people.

We have government run Fire Departments, Police Departments, Ambulance Services, Roads, Schools, Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, Veterans Administration, FBI, Airports, MIlitary, etc., etc., etc. Most of the time this myriad of local, state & federal agencies provide us with outstanding services and a better quality of life. Let's not shy away from providing all Americans health care just because the government is involved.

Have the Terrorists Won?

I was amazed at what I was reading. Without firing a shot the Islamic terrorists had scored a tremendous victory in America. Yale University Press has decided not to reproduce the cartoons about the Prophet Muhammad in a new book titled "The Cartoons That Shook the World" by Brandeis University professor Jytte Klausen. (Foxnews.com carried the story; see it here). These are the cartoons that caused so much violence when the Dutch newspaper published them. The University questioned many experts and the consensus was that if the cartoons were included in the new book, then there would most certainly be more violence. The decision was made by Yale University Press not to include the cartoons.

Are we now living in a society where a small group of radicals can trump the First Amendment? The United States government cannot prohibit free speech, but I guess that if you are willing to be violent enough, then some in the academic world will give up free speech in order to keep that violence from occurring. What's next? Sharia Law? Christians in America are expected to endure any and all forms of criticism and outright hatred without so much as a peep. After all everyone has a right to their own opinion, right? Want to put a crucifix in a bottle of urine and call it art? No problem, Christians might be mad about it and might protest about it, but they cannot stop it because this is "freedom of expression." Have the Islamic terrorists taught us a lesson? That through violence you can restrict free speech in America? I hope not.

The Bill of Rights guarantees that all who live in this country have religious freedom. But as a follower of Christ Jesus, I have seen my rights slowly diminished. There are those in this country that want to completely restrict when, where, and how I am able to share my faith. More and more of my civil rights are being taken from me in the name of "separation of church and state." Christian religious freedoms in America are being eroded mostly by bureaucratic regulations and court decisions that infringe on our First Amendment rights. Christians are treated as second class citizens, not allowed to practice their faith in the public square, because someone might be offended. Yet, now deference is being made to Islamic terrorists would not grant any religious freedom to Americans.

Have we lost the "War on Terrorism?" Should we bring our troops home from Iraq & Afghanistan? Aren't they fighting for FREEDOM? Please do not give in to these terrorists, who would rob of us of the freedoms that have been purchased with the blood of our Fathers and Mothers, Brothers and Sisters, Sons and Daughters, Nieces and Nephews, Aunts and Uncles. You get the point. If there is something in a book that Muslims find offensive, then they have the same freedoms to boycott and peaceful protest that are granted to all U.S. citizens. We have laws to deal with those who commit violent acts in our country. Let us not voluntarily give up our freedoms, but let us deal with those who would use violence to take them away.

Has Civility Ceased to Function in Our Society?

I like to discuss issues with people that have opposing views. I went to the Facebook page One Million Against Sarah Palin to see what they have to say, and I must say that I was quite disappointed. Has civility ceased to function in our society? I have a hard time understanding why there has to be such hate and animosity towards someone with whom you disagree. The Bible tells me to love even my enemies and someone with whom I disagree certainly isn't my enemy. It is one thing to strongly disagree on an issue and to even steadfastly be unmovable from your position, but it is quite another to stoop to the level of name calling and vicious personal attacks on someone just because they have an opinion different from yours. Not everything that conservatives say is always correct, but then again, the same goes for the liberal position. If we truly want to find solutions to some of the complex problems that face our nation, we must learn to work together with civility. As long as anyone who has an opposing position is treated so despicably then we will never be able to find solutions to our problems. To my friends, if you have not been to this group's page, don't go! The vile, disgusting, revolting comments made about Sarah Palin by some of the members are not something anyone should have to read.