A senator, a priest and a health care bill walk into a bar...

Imagine my pleasure at finding a rare species of Democrat, the pro-lifer.  Based on what you hear in the news, you'd think they were extinct - but they're out there, and the people have voted for them into positions of power, which is such an encouraging piece of information to have discovered today.  (I'm being slightly droll, folks.)

Anyway, now that the ever-dreaded Health Care Bill (capitalized because it has brought the best praise and worst criticisms out of people) has passed the House, it makes a beeline for the Senate's vote.  Nebraska Sen. Ben Nelson has stated that he will not vote for a health care bill that basically allows public dollars (i.e. yours and mine) to fund abortions.  Cue the Californian Sen. Barbara Boxer, who inevitably intones that abortion restrictions demonstrate discrimination tactics against women.  While Senate Finance Chairman Max Baucus promises to find a middle ground to get the bill passed to the President's desk, an interesting postscript to the whole discussion is what 40 House Democrats did to get the bill passed in the first place.  They agreed to the severe abortion restrictions to get the bill passed, and then sent a letter to the House Speaker threatening to block the bill if the Senate passed it without easing the abortion restrictions.

This is all very expected, although I didn't realize that the House could block the bill after the Senate passed it.  When I started reading the comments below, an interesting theme presented itself:  while the pro-life and pro-choice voices discussed their predictable arguments, some folks intoned that the Catholic Church's tax exempt status should be revoked because of their role in encouraging - nay, even forcing - their views on this health bill by preventing the medical procedure to be a part of it.  Even more interesting is the fact that two of my Facebook friends recently joined a Facebook group called "Revocation of tax exempt status from churches engaging in political action."  Most claim that the clear line between church and state has been blurred too much, and the involvement, money and time of religious institutions have clearly exceeded the arbitrary limit of what should be allowed for tax-exempt organizations.  (I do have to note that the organizers of the group appear to not question if there is a God, or Jesus saves, or to become atheist.)

Now, here is my full disclosure.  Over the past couple weeks, priests have surely taken to the pulpit to preach about this and asked us to send letters to our Congresspeople to encourage them to vote against any health bill that uses tax dollars to fund abortions.  They have asked us to love gays but not support marriages outside ones between a man and a woman, since opening the question of who constitutes a marriage could lead to other questions on marriage, such as why we are not allowed to marry our brothers, sisters, mothers or fathers.  They have asked us not support in-vitro, surrogacy and gay adoption.  They have told us that Catholic charities and adoptive centers are forced to close their doors because they will not allow gay and lesbian couples to adopt as it constitutes discrimination.  I've been to church and heard the messages.

So with that all being said, here is my question:  If religious institutions and other nonprofits are not allowed to encourage their members to act in a politically moral way by contributing their voice, time and money, then how else are they supposed to preach their message?  I just can't figure out why I have to pay taxes to let my voice be heard.  Since I was born on American soil, I don't have to pay one dime to vote.  I don't have to pay my government to peacefully protest for what I believe.  I pay for military and police protection and decent roads to drive on.  Quite honestly, I could take it one step further and say that the far left is encouraging organizations (not just religious - the AARP and the NAACP, for example) to lose their tax-exempt status in order to fund their huge agenda of spending, but I'm probably venturing into some serious conspiracy theory waters there - but it's not a far stretch.  The national debt has now swelled beyond the debt in 1945 following World War II already, without the passage of this health bill, and my children and grandchildren will pay, pay, pay for this.  But I digress.

Look, most of these people do not understand that by focusing on the religious right organizations that they also paint themselves into a corner with the AARP and NAACP.  Take away the churches' tax-exempt status, and you give the government no choice but to being following suit with the elderly and colored people organizations, too. This isn't just a question of a separation of church and state.  Those two organizations are far more powerful in the United States than most folks realize, and they would indeed be in danger of paying taxes.  Oh, wait - NOW is tax-exempt, too!  How about that!  There are suspect organizations all over the place plastering the political arena with their controversial agendas.  It's not just the Catholic Church.

This is why I ruminate on all these things and the media's influence on it.  No matter where you turn, you're being influenced by media, whether it's mainstream American news or social media.  You can find words to support your cause all over the place, and eventually, all it turns into is a cacophony of voices screaming at our government to vote how we want them to.  Instead of using our votes to properly influence legislation, we're avoiding our right to vote by being lazy on Voting Day and waiting until legislation has been proposed, and then screaming our heads off for the electorate to change their minds or stay the course.  We don't do our own research.  We let the media do the thinking for us, instead of letting it be a guide to our decision-making process.  We accept, accept, accept instead of thinking THEN acting.  We scream, scream scream instead of walking to the middle, extending a hand to say "I won't promise to agree with you, and I won't make you promise to agree with me, but I'll listen if you listen."

Since I'm just a tax-paying citizen, I'm not sure if I'm obliged to you, my readers, for divulging more of my political views, although it probably couldn't hurt.  Here's what I'll do:  I'll meet my readers halfway.

• I do not want my tax dollars used for abortion.  Fetuses are both babies and live beings.  I would be in favor of teaching sexual responsibility, however, and encouraging parents to be NOT be lazy and let the schools do it for them.  For criminy's sake, tell your kids about STDs and pregnancy.  Tell your kids that having a baby will not produce someone who loves you - babies only love themselves.  That is their survival mechanism.  (I have a blog entry awaiting rumination about that, too.)  Tell your kids that sex does not always equal love.  Tell your boys to be responsible men and to take their fertility as seriously as women do.  Tell your girls that marriage and pregnancy do not always equal happiness - loving thyself is the first step to building a life of love.  Tell your kids what abortion is:  A medical procedure that scrapes and vacuums the inside of a woman's uterus in order to prevent the birth of a live baby.  It's surgery, it's risky, and with any other procedure, it has its risks.  
• I believe that the definition of marriage spans social, cultural and religious contexts, and that marriage is between a man and a woman.  However, I would be in favor of permanent partnerships - the "everything but marriage" rights, for those folks who love those kinds of catchy phrases.  Give them equal rights, but don't force religious institutions to marry them.  Let them enjoy the same tax obligations and divorce laws that the rest of us do.  I don't think it's right or fair that a committed gay or lesbian couple do not have rights to see their sick loved ones in a hospital or not be able to get health insurance on their partners' plans.  Let the United States give equal rights, but don't force churches to do the same.  
• I don't mind that my current tax dollars could fund a safety net for folks who lose their health insurance - who knows, someday I might need that safety net.  But I don't want my government to force me to keep the public option once I find another job.  Don't make me do that.  That's utter bull and taking away my right to choose coverage for me and my family.  There's also a steep fine - I believe it's 2.5% of gross adjusted income - for people and families declining the coverage who don't qualify for the subsidy.  The middle class bell curve is becoming skinnier by the day.  Don't penalize me if I don't have insurance just so you can ensure the income to fund that behemoth of a public plan in order to avoid raising taxes.  I have an education and a head on my shoulders that works properly.  I appreciate the fact that my tax dollars will go towards insuring my insurance coverage (???) but trust me when I say that I have the ability to get my own job and pay for whatever insurance I choose, regardless if I have to use the public option or not. 

Soaking the Rich and Other Rainy Day Thoughts

Ladies and gents - thanks for checking back frequently. As some of you know, I gave birth on June 7 to a healthy little girl. We've been resting and recovering from the surprisingly rapid labor and delivery (four hours!), and so I've decided to return with quite the thorny issue:

Jack Cafferty asks his readers: Fair to soak the rich to pay for health care reform?

Thorny indeed. (Full disclosure - we're in a middle class bracket.) When reading the comments, I see one word that most of the readers are alluding too: UNFAIR. Unfair that there are millionaires with their "inbred doggies", endless loopholes in the tax system specially for them, and that by being (or getting rich), the upper classes deserve to be hosed for universal health care. The GOP gave tax cuts to the rich and that is unfair. The rich got lots of money and won't share the toys in the sandbox and that's unfair.

Sorry about being bitter. Don't get me wrong - when I was in California and we lost our corporate benefits, I agonized over my health history and wondered if there was a preexisting condition that would prevent me from getting my own health coverage. I have a clean bill of health, but there was a small skin tag I had treated, and I was wondering if that was reason enough to hit my wallet with a higher deductible. It was expensive, too. I understand the pains and risks of not having health insurance - I dreamed about all of them before we were able to get covered. However...

I find it hard to understand why the rich and upper classes are being harangued by the middle and lower classes because they feel that they need some punishment. If America provided them the opportunities to get rich, some people reason, then they should be taxed to pay for all the nation's problems with funding government programs. Even though that same government has a few spending issues of their own.

My problem rests within the government, not the rich. The government makes the rules, and the rich know how to bend them; it's something that has been standard for decades now. They will find ways to reduce that little income number on their taxes every year and finding ways to deduct their assets. What I'm more concerned about is that the government will find a way to get more money to spend on a universal health care plan that doesn't work. This is why my husband and I are not depending on Social Security returns when we are old enough to get them: Social Security and Medicare are in trouble. We had predicted this when we first got married, and our retirement plans do not include this to fall back on.

This is a comment from Cafferty's talking point. I'm 99% sure this guy is being sarcastic, and it sums up an important difference between conservatives and liberals:

Why don’t we just make it illegal to make money? We should cap income at $100,000 and tax away whatever is left and give it to those who haven’t worked as hard their whole lives. Let’s tell people they don’t need to worry about working hard to get ahead because as long as you are breathing, you deserve as much as the next guy. Let’s penalize people who get higher education and those that acquire unique skills that are worth a premium. We can all live the utopian dream and live in the same cookie cutter home built by the government and go work every day in our government designated jobs. It will be a dream. Personally I cannot wait until the government starts outlawing “junkfood” in the name of preventative care because it may lead to more health problems it has to pay for.

Yup, like taxing sugary drinks. (Interestingly, the above commentary comes from a gentleman in California, the king state of tax-now-pay-later and law books that could paper the square footage of the moon.)

Conservatives want small government. They want to operate on their own terms, build their own businesses. Liberals generally want big government. They want to help resolve issues for the lower and middle classes through social programs, more operating like a coherent unit rather than a bunch of small villages. Neither way is perfect and both have great advantages.

So who do we go with? Do we follow a more conservative approach by letting insurance companies battle for our health business? Or do we follow the liberal street and let the government try to solve the problems created by private insurance? Mind you, if we take a socialist view of this, there are going to be other problems; neither way is perfect.

I say we start with not looking to the rich class as an enemy. While the press tends to focus on rich folks who swindle their way in this life, there are many more who quietly live and work like the rest of us, some even providing jobs and charity. Once we get past our jealous chants of "UNFAIR," we should look at the bloated health care system and figure out a way to keep more folks out of hospitals. I worked at a hospital once, and the cardiology floor was always full. Always. The floor that housed diabetics was nearly as full, too. We are a fat bunch of folks who need to stop depending on the health care system to cure our fat kids of childhood obesity, our chronic need for blood tests for cholesterol and diabetes, and incentives for people who stave off preventable diseases.

Sure, dumb things happen and accidents are unavoidable. But I'm sick of listening to the poor and middle classes screaming at the rich, pointing their fingers at them and saying it's all their fault whenever there is suffering that involves high taxes or being poor. It's not. The disparity between the rich and poor gets bigger every day, but forcing the rich to stoop down to lower standards and ambitions is not the way to solve this problem. We need success stories more than ever right now, to be honest. We need folks to stop complaining. We need to find a way to cut our own health care costs before we can expected a bloated, indebted government to "fix" it for us. Don't just answer the question; how about find a solution?

As a postscript, I'm not sure what I believe in regards to how our tax brackets are set up. Some commenters in Cafferty's talking point bring up the percentage of taxes they pay, the ultra-rich paying a smaller percentage of their income than middle classes. A socialist tax method, similar to the GST tax in Canada, may be part of the solution, but the bottom line is that the government badly needs our money to operate their unbalanced books. If it's not for health care, it will be for something else, and the middle class will continue to bear a lot of the burden, likely more so than their poorer counterparts.

I leave you with a quote from Scott, from Cafferty's talking point. While Scott is pretty blunt with his thoughts, I do tend to agree: The amount of folks who truly need social services is small compared to those who want an easy way in this world by crying UNFAIR. I think we could easily support those who are truly disabled or in need of help if we all had a bit of honesty in us:

Why is it ok to take money from people who work and give it to those who don’t? We were all born with brains, maybe we should use them and accept responsibility for the choices we make in life.

Honey See, Honey Do

As I mentioned in my previous post, for us adults, most of our carefree days are taken up by such small details as work, bills and mortgages/rent. And for you parents out there, your carefree days are probably completely gone for the next couple decades. Because when I got pregnant, holding that stick with two lines back in 2004 after a night of general drunken fun, I had to drop everything I was doing - drinking, going to the smoky bars - and start to learn what was going on with my body. All of a sudden, my body didn't care much about me, as I found out after those first 14 weeks of nausea and only eating mashed potatoes and dill pickles. My body only cared about the little human it was manufacturing, a little bean of a human that eventually grew into a beanstalk of a girl, gently breaking my skin into little rivers of reddened stretch marks and making my butt and boobs sink into the swamp. (Yes, Monty Python fans.)

But then I found an online community at iVillage, a group of women who were all expectant mothers, due in May 2005. Can you imagine? Dozens of pregnant women talking about the most incredible, disgusting, scary things that would probably send college students home to Mom and Dad, vowing never to look at the "perks" of college life the same way again, if they truly knew what pregnancy would do to a woman's mind. Women talking about how garlic can prevent a yeast infection if placed, um, at the source of the problem. (Ew.) Women who, by May 1, were dying to have baby out and asking if nipple stimulation was really the way to go to jump-start labor. (Um.) Teenage moms who had absolutely no knowledge of what was going on and eventually made iVillage their gynecologist, mother and Divine Intervention source. (Yikes.)

To be fair, I came away with 10 other women from that group who were quite sane-minded and we have our own little group, and there were plenty of other sane women. But for every woman with her head screwed on right, there was someone else waiting to stoke the fires of unfriendly controversy, to bear the claw of catty misconception, or wave the flag of self-righteousness.

But then once those little squirts were out of the womb, I remember a different conversation that wasn't all that gross - honey. As some you might know, honey is considered dangerous, nay, even poisonous, to babies under 12 months of age because of the risk of botulism. Some mothers were concerned about eradicating allergies in their babies, because local-made honey has all the local pollens in one convenient bottle, thereby allowing the body to build up immunity. Their doctors would wag their fingers and tell them absolutely not, until that first birthday, and then they would beg someone in the iVillage community to tell them that it was probably worth the risk.

But now, what with all the hoopla about those children's cough remedies and how they actually might be dangerous for children under six years of age, a study by my alma mater found that honey is actually a better OTC (over-the-counter) solution to suppress cough. Perhaps it's the sugary sweet, thick-coated relief that it provides for a raw throat and chest; perhaps it's the antioxidants and antimicrobial features that helps heal things quicker. Nonetheless, it's a sigh of relief for most parents who don't like pumping unnatural remedies into their kids and might want to try honey as an alternate the next time Junior starts hacking.

Granted, those parents who also view immunizations as "unnatural remedies" and refuse to immunize their kids are threatening the return of such devastating diseases like polio, but there's a reason why I don't frequent that mommy's place in iVillage any more. Alliances, enemies, trolls, and women shoving garlic in places other than their mouth. It was just too much. Even for a woman.