I want to rant about the Supreme Court's decision today and the overall impact of the Obamacare law.
First, although I don't like it, I think that the decision was constitutionally correct (unfortunately). The individual mandate IS a tax, no matter what the people who fought to get the law passed claimed, and Congress does have the constitutional authority to levy taxes. Secondly, striking down the portion requiring states to implement the new provisions in order to keep old funding is a victory for states' rights over coercive federal government policies.
The government's role is to protect life, liberty and property from unlawful deprivation. There is no reason that the government should provide social programs of any type. That should be the work of Christ's church. We are called to care for the widow and orphan, not to relinquish our responsibility to faceless, amorphous "Society". Too long the church has abrogated its responsibility in this area and the vacuum was filled first by profit making companies and now by government. I am not opposed to lawfully profiting from any service, even healthcare, but insurance companies and providers were only able to make a profit because they fulfilled a need. Let them continue to make a profit by serving those who can afford to pay for the service or the premiums for insurance. Support your church so it can be the one providing healthcare support to those who cannot afford it, either directly, or indirectly through financial support.
Supposedly, Obamacare will lower the costs of healthcare. This is a false canard. The overall amount of money going into healthcare will increase. This is because the law relies on those who don't need healthcare to pay for it. So, the average premium might (and that's a big "might") go down, but the number of premiums paid will certainly rise.
Secondly, economic analysts are predicting that healthcare insurance premiums will rise. I assume because when you have a captive customer, you are freer to raise the prices. However, I think this would be a disastrous mistake by the private healthcare companies. Raising the rates of private healthcare will create an environment perfect for those who argue for socialized medicine. They have already demonized companies that make a profit on healthcare. It will be even easier if income to the insurance companies rises, much less if profit margins rise. Then the federal government can step in on its "white" horse and promise to "reduce the cost of healthcare for all Americans, especially the less fortunate."
But is socialized medicine better than our current system? Emphatically NO! Europe and Canada have waiting lists for routine procedures. Their tax burdens are high, some in the 60% range and many nations in Europe can't afford to continue running the government because of overburdened social programs.
But there are people who do not have access to healthcare. What do we do about them? I've already said, the church needs to step up. Charity is the function of the church, not of government. And do not be mistaken, providing healthcare for those who can't afford it is charity, not a right.
What do we do now?
Now is the time to find out who will overturn Obamacare if they are in Congress. Do what you can to support those candidates. If you have the funds, contribute to their campaigns. If you have the time volunteer for their campaigns. Educate yourself on what the candidate believes and how they will act. Don't just trust the news or the candidates' stump speeches. Look into their voting records, send emails, make phone calls.
At a minimum, vote in the upcoming election. I don't care which side of the aisle a candidate sits. We just need representatives who will truly represent our interests. Lower federal government intrusion into our lives, and you lower the cost of government. Lower the costs of government and you lower your tax burden.
Thursday, June 28, 2012
Sunday, June 10, 2012
A != ( !A ) (Philosophy of Knowledge Series, #2)
Sixth postulate: True cannot be false.
If something is true, then it's opposite is necessarily false. A thing and that which is exactly not that thing cannot be the same.
It never ceases to amaze me when I find someone who honestly believes that two contradictory statements can both be true. Usually, it starts when I express my firmly held belief in Heaven and Hell and the need for a Savior to escape Hell. Rather than attack my faith in support of their own belief system, they fall back into "Well that's true for you, but not for me."
I could proceed in the discussion if the individual wanted to discuss the "All paths lead to Heaven philosophy." But they sincerely believe that my opinion that, without Christ, they are going to hell and their firmly held belief that they are not going to hell can both be true.
Typically, I try to demonstrate the impossibility of both of these statements to be true by using some sort of simple, mutually exclusive statements, like "It is day" and "It is not day". The most common type of response I get is these statements both could be true, if the details of the circumstances are slightly different. I have fought this logic battle so often, that I have come to the realization that people are unwilling to accept basic logic when acceptance puts them on uncomfortable philosophical footing. Essentially, if one does not want to deal with the issues presented by Christianity, no amount of logic will change that.
I have become so frustrated with the entrenched status of this illogical relativism, that I must resort to the simple statement that a thing and its opposite cannot be the same.
Sixth postulate - Extension: Possible solutions to mutually exclusive statements
An extension of this postulate is that for two statements, a and b where a and be cannot both be true (i.e., mutually exclusive), then there are three possible solutions, thus:
(1) a is true and b is false
(2) a is false and b is true
(3) both a and b are false
If something is true, then it's opposite is necessarily false. A thing and that which is exactly not that thing cannot be the same.
It never ceases to amaze me when I find someone who honestly believes that two contradictory statements can both be true. Usually, it starts when I express my firmly held belief in Heaven and Hell and the need for a Savior to escape Hell. Rather than attack my faith in support of their own belief system, they fall back into "Well that's true for you, but not for me."
I could proceed in the discussion if the individual wanted to discuss the "All paths lead to Heaven philosophy." But they sincerely believe that my opinion that, without Christ, they are going to hell and their firmly held belief that they are not going to hell can both be true.
Typically, I try to demonstrate the impossibility of both of these statements to be true by using some sort of simple, mutually exclusive statements, like "It is day" and "It is not day". The most common type of response I get is these statements both could be true, if the details of the circumstances are slightly different. I have fought this logic battle so often, that I have come to the realization that people are unwilling to accept basic logic when acceptance puts them on uncomfortable philosophical footing. Essentially, if one does not want to deal with the issues presented by Christianity, no amount of logic will change that.
I have become so frustrated with the entrenched status of this illogical relativism, that I must resort to the simple statement that a thing and its opposite cannot be the same.
Sixth postulate - Extension: Possible solutions to mutually exclusive statements
An extension of this postulate is that for two statements, a and b where a and be cannot both be true (i.e., mutually exclusive), then there are three possible solutions, thus:
(1) a is true and b is false
(2) a is false and b is true
(3) both a and b are false
Sunday, June 3, 2012
Foundations (Philosophy of Knowledge Series, #1)
Any philosophy must begin by laying a foundation of postulates from which proofs may proceed.
First postulate: I exist.
The sine qua non. Eons have been spent proving that one's self exists. Of all the self-evident propositions, none seems more obvious than this.
Second postulate: I perceive.
I able to collect information about things that appear around me.
Third postulate: I imagine
I can create mental concepts ("thoughts") internally and independent of what I perceive.
Fourth postulate: I think
I am able to process and interpret that which I perceive and imagine.
Fifth postulate: I reason.
I am able to combine my thoughts to establish a conclusion, belief or knowledge.
First postulate: I exist.
The sine qua non. Eons have been spent proving that one's self exists. Of all the self-evident propositions, none seems more obvious than this.
Second postulate: I perceive.
I able to collect information about things that appear around me.
Third postulate: I imagine
I can create mental concepts ("thoughts") internally and independent of what I perceive.
Fourth postulate: I think
I am able to process and interpret that which I perceive and imagine.
Fifth postulate: I reason.
I am able to combine my thoughts to establish a conclusion, belief or knowledge.
What's with all the "I"s?
Some of you may have noticed that this post is full of "I" statements. My choice to use the first person is intentional and is not meant to imply "only I", but rather that "I" is the logical starting point for a philosophy of knowledge.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)