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. 

Work the chain gang or else!

This is something I've already talked about in "Bureaucracy's Earache," but apparently, self-employed folks who don't have access to group health care are not the only ones seeing the gaping holes in the system. Unfortunately, it's having more repercussions for the men and women who are losing limbs in Iraq.

Wounded military members are coming home to the VA, for sure, but there are some spooky stories out there about the red tape fight that goes on. One soldier claims that after he lost part of his brain in an attack, the VA classified it as only 10% rating for disability, and attributed 80% for facial disfigurement. Another claims that the VA told him his injuries (sustained in Iraq while driving a truck) are not service-related.

Then I found this tidbit in Reader's Digest (o Mother of all Bathroom Reading!):

Since then, however, members of Congress have courted the vet vote by defining the law much more generously. Now a veteran doesn't have to prove that military service caused his disability, only that it appeared or got worse during his service. So if you develop diabetes while stationed in Germany, you're covered for it, for life. Veterans don't even have to show that the condition has affected their ability to earn a living.

Well, this discrepancy would have been helpful to present to Congress, allowing that Mr. Crowley got his facts right. Because of this fact, he says, is why hemorrhoids are getting a whopping $14 million to 120,000 vets, and others are getting benefits for contracting STDs (most definitely NOT service-related) and hypertension:

According to a 2003 Congressional Budget Office report, almost 300,000 veterans get disability payments for conditions that are "generally neither caused nor aggravated by military service." The annual price tag for these cases is $970 million.

At least the VA is covering some of the sick folks in this country. Apparently you need to be spic-and-span to even get individual insurance. It's been a month since I submitted my paperwork, and now they want even more health records from me. Now I don't even know if I want to be insured by these guys, especially since I found out that California is an "all-or-nothing" state for coverage: If they don't want to cover you for anything, any little thing at all, they'll just deny you coverage. No pre-existing condition rules in place there. Great.

No question, the repercussions of covering those who were legitimately injured in Iraq will reverberate for many years to come. There are soldiers coming home, some in their early 20s, with major physical and psychological damage. Between this and Medicaid preparing for the baby boomers, I have a feeling the system is going to crumple up for us working folk, especially those on the periphery by working on their own.

An interesting blog entry I found last night embraced all the ill-will I have towards the system, but the comments left were even more interesting. Not only were people sympathizing with the situation, but some interesting "solutions" came up. Workarounds, if you will. Like joining a local Chamber of Commerce. Or getting a Sam's Club membership. Looking at http://www.nase.org/.

So maybe this isn't the end of the journey, even if I get the Big Red X on my application. But it's very clear by some of the comments that our neighbors up north (and even one from Norway)are enjoying the fact that they can pay more taxes in order to have health insurance, always. At this point, if there weren't such a taboo on raising U.S. taxes, maybe I'd pay for a little help, too.

I don't want to even START on the benefits that our government employees receive. Someone should plant themselves in the audience and ask these guys: "So, you think you have an answer to health care? Tell me, what benefits are you getting right now, and would you give those up benefits in order to take advantage of your own health care plan?" You all know what the real answer would be.

Bureaucracy's Earache

Has there been any worse time of the month than the first and last? A pain in my ear, literally. Allow me to outline the last few weeks:

We found out that we could not afford the group coverage that we were utilizing through Spencer's company, so we decided to hunt around for indivdiual coverage. We found some reasonable prices through a group affiliated with AHDI, the professional organziation I'm a member of as a medical transcriptionist. No problem. Well, it was a bit hard to get a hold of my agent, so it took longer than usual to get all the paperwork, go through all the rules and plans, and pick the ones that were best for us. Needless to say, since the cheapest options with decent coverage were far between, I ended up putting our entire family on indvidual plans. Why should my husband have to pay for maternity coverage? Duh.

Fast forward to the end of September. It's almost time to cancel our existing coverage, and I'm having issues filling out paperwork. So we decide that, instead of risking the insurance company not honoring our requested effective date of October 1, we decided to get short-term coverage for October just to bridge the gap.

Then, I called the insurance company to check the status of our short-term coverage, in case we needed to see a doctor (like me. As sure as clockwork, I developed a strange fullness/ache in my ear mere hours before October 1.) I called Blue Cross of CA and was told that my husband and child were approved, but not me. Why? I had a claim. I went to the doctor to get a simple cyst checked out in September, and deeming me too high risk for short term coverage, I was denied.

So now I sit here, frantically filling out my own paperwork so that my husband can fax my paperwork first, and pray that we're not at the mercy of the insrance company if they do not approve my October 1 effective date. Not to mention that all my prescription medications will be fully out of pocket this month.

Why am I being punished for proactively taking care of myself? It's not like I have AIDS or diabetes or hepatitis C, or even over the age of 30. I am a low-risk patient by all means, and yet I'm being forced to hope for the best while my request for long-term coverage is being processed. Is the lesson "don't go to your doctor if you're switching insurance?" Because that is ridiculous. What if I was fired from a job and had to scramble for insurance, and ended up with pneumonia or a respiratory infection that required antibiotics? This isn't a chronic condition, and yet I'm being treated as if I have one.