"If, from the more wretched parts of the old world, we look at those which are in an advanced stage of improvement, we still find the greedy hand of government thrusting itself into every corner and crevice of industry, and grasping the spoil of the multitude. Invention is continually exercised, to furnish new pretenses for revenues and taxation. It watches prosperity as its prey and permits none to escape without tribute." --Thomas Paine, Rights of Man, 1791 (italics added)
The Founding Fathers considered socialism, and rejected it.
Thursday, July 30, 2009
Socialized Medicine
Socialism is not a new idea; it is as old as freedom. It is its opposition and has existed since the beginning of government. This is not something that the prophets of our church have ignored or not taken a position on. Prophets and apostles including J. Reuben Clark, Heber J. Grant, David O. McKay, Harold B. Lee, Spencer W. Kimball, and Ezra Taft Benson have all fervently warned against socialism. I am not sure how we can ignore these warnings. They are specific and consequences are laid out if we do not heed their warnings. I highly recommend listening to the following clips, they are a bit dry in spots but well worth the 12 or so minutes (notice the mention to socialized medicine at the end of the first clip):
Quotes from audio:
"There are some among us who would confuse the united order with socialism. That is a serious misunderstanding. It is significant to me that the Prophet Joseph Smith, after attending lectures on socialism in his day, made this official entry in the Church history: “I said I did not believe the doctrine” (Joseph Smith, History of the Church 6:33)."
"Compulsory benevolence is not charity. Today’s socialists–who call themselves egalitarians–are using the federal government to redistribute wealth in our society, not as a matter of voluntary charity, but as a so-called matter of right."
"Today the party now in power is advocating and has support, apparently in both major parties, for a comprehensive national health insurance program–a euphemism for socialized medicine. Our major danger is that we are currently (and have been for forty years) transferring responsibility from the individual, local, and state governments to the federal government–precisely the same course that led to the economic collapse in Great Britain and New York City. We cannot long pursue the present trend without its bringing us to national insolvency." (italics added)
"Edmund Burke, the great British political philosopher, warned of the threat of economic equality. He said,
A perfect equality will indeed be produced–that is to say, equal wretchedness, equal beggary, and on the part of the petitioners, a woeful, helpless, and desperate disappointment. Such is the event of all compulsory equalizations. They pull down what is above; they never raise what is below; and they depress high and low together beneath the level of what was originally the lowest."
Me again: Today's recent discussion on socialized medicine motivated this post. We have been warned against all socialism. Today's proponents of socialized medicine think they are helping the poor by making health care more accessible. And it sounds pretty good, but it's not the way it is supposed to be. Charities and church's are supposed to care for the needy, it was never intended that government should take care of the poor. Government sponsored welfare enslaves the recipients and robs others of opportunities to reach out and help those in need.
Socialized medicine is not the answer to our health care mess.
Quotes from audio:
"There are some among us who would confuse the united order with socialism. That is a serious misunderstanding. It is significant to me that the Prophet Joseph Smith, after attending lectures on socialism in his day, made this official entry in the Church history: “I said I did not believe the doctrine” (Joseph Smith, History of the Church 6:33)."
"Compulsory benevolence is not charity. Today’s socialists–who call themselves egalitarians–are using the federal government to redistribute wealth in our society, not as a matter of voluntary charity, but as a so-called matter of right."
"Today the party now in power is advocating and has support, apparently in both major parties, for a comprehensive national health insurance program–a euphemism for socialized medicine. Our major danger is that we are currently (and have been for forty years) transferring responsibility from the individual, local, and state governments to the federal government–precisely the same course that led to the economic collapse in Great Britain and New York City. We cannot long pursue the present trend without its bringing us to national insolvency." (italics added)
"Edmund Burke, the great British political philosopher, warned of the threat of economic equality. He said,
A perfect equality will indeed be produced–that is to say, equal wretchedness, equal beggary, and on the part of the petitioners, a woeful, helpless, and desperate disappointment. Such is the event of all compulsory equalizations. They pull down what is above; they never raise what is below; and they depress high and low together beneath the level of what was originally the lowest."
Me again: Today's recent discussion on socialized medicine motivated this post. We have been warned against all socialism. Today's proponents of socialized medicine think they are helping the poor by making health care more accessible. And it sounds pretty good, but it's not the way it is supposed to be. Charities and church's are supposed to care for the needy, it was never intended that government should take care of the poor. Government sponsored welfare enslaves the recipients and robs others of opportunities to reach out and help those in need.
Socialized medicine is not the answer to our health care mess.
Thursday, July 23, 2009
Health Care and Mansfield, Ohio
http://www.newsweek.com/id/195673
Interesting article on health care reform (by Mitt Romney by the way). For me, still too much government involvement...but definitely heading in the right direction. Government run health care is not the answer. I just spent two weeks at a government subsidized dental clinic in Mansfield and saw some really shady stuff going on there. Granted, the comparison between that Mansfield dental clinic is not completely applicable to health care reform, but it does show how government involvement breeds inefficiency and unethical treatment. For example...
The Mansfield clinic does not get paid by procedure, but by appointment. For each appointment they get paid $120 for people who don't have Medicaid but qualify for assistance. So the clinic does one procedure per appointment (even if it only takes ten minutes) and schedules multiple appointments for every patient regardless of their need. Someone who needs full mouth extractions could theoretically have 32 appointments to get it done. Sometimes, if they are feeling generous, they will take out two teeth per appointment.
If a patient walks in with swelling from a tooth borne infection they do an emergency exam and prescribe antibiotics and pain meds. This is true no matter how simple the extraction would be, after all, two appointments is better than one in Mansfield. At any private practice in America, the tooth would immediately be taken out. It is unethical and wrong to send the patient away without removing the source of infection.
When treatment planning for a new patient, not all options are explained to patients. Why? Because some procedures are not profitable to the clinic. Fillings and extractions are the most profitable. Everything else, including crowns (which Medicaid sometimes covers) are hardly discussed or recognized as a possibility.
The result of government subsidizing the Mansfield clinic: everyone, including people with means to pay or insured, gets inefficient and lower quality care. When government takes over health care, we ALL will go to a Mansfield-like clinic for procedures far more critical than fillings.
Interesting article on health care reform (by Mitt Romney by the way). For me, still too much government involvement...but definitely heading in the right direction. Government run health care is not the answer. I just spent two weeks at a government subsidized dental clinic in Mansfield and saw some really shady stuff going on there. Granted, the comparison between that Mansfield dental clinic is not completely applicable to health care reform, but it does show how government involvement breeds inefficiency and unethical treatment. For example...
The Mansfield clinic does not get paid by procedure, but by appointment. For each appointment they get paid $120 for people who don't have Medicaid but qualify for assistance. So the clinic does one procedure per appointment (even if it only takes ten minutes) and schedules multiple appointments for every patient regardless of their need. Someone who needs full mouth extractions could theoretically have 32 appointments to get it done. Sometimes, if they are feeling generous, they will take out two teeth per appointment.
If a patient walks in with swelling from a tooth borne infection they do an emergency exam and prescribe antibiotics and pain meds. This is true no matter how simple the extraction would be, after all, two appointments is better than one in Mansfield. At any private practice in America, the tooth would immediately be taken out. It is unethical and wrong to send the patient away without removing the source of infection.
When treatment planning for a new patient, not all options are explained to patients. Why? Because some procedures are not profitable to the clinic. Fillings and extractions are the most profitable. Everything else, including crowns (which Medicaid sometimes covers) are hardly discussed or recognized as a possibility.
The result of government subsidizing the Mansfield clinic: everyone, including people with means to pay or insured, gets inefficient and lower quality care. When government takes over health care, we ALL will go to a Mansfield-like clinic for procedures far more critical than fillings.
Sunday, July 12, 2009
Everybody is at Risk
"For although a man may have many revelations, and have power to do many mighty works, yet if he boasts in his own strength, and sets at naught the counsels of God, and follows after the dictates of his own will and carnal desires, he must fall and incur the vengeance of a just God upon him." (italics and bold added)
Doctrine & Covenants 3:4
This applies even to powerful seminary teachers. When someone testifies of true principles, the Spirit bears witness of those principles. The Spirit teaches us of true doctrine, not of other people's worthiness. Unrighteous people can bear strong testimony of true principles, and the Spirit can testify of the truth of those principles. Great men can fall, the church is still true.
Doctrine & Covenants 3:4
This applies even to powerful seminary teachers. When someone testifies of true principles, the Spirit bears witness of those principles. The Spirit teaches us of true doctrine, not of other people's worthiness. Unrighteous people can bear strong testimony of true principles, and the Spirit can testify of the truth of those principles. Great men can fall, the church is still true.
Tuesday, June 9, 2009
Monday, June 8, 2009
Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Pride Month
Did you know that we are in the middle of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Pride Month? On June 1 of this year our President Barack Obama declared the month of June LGBT Pride Month. Here is the link to official transcript:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Presidential-Proclamation-LGBT-Pride-Month/
Here are just a couple of paragraphs in case you don't want to read the whole thing.
"My Administration has partnered with the LGBT community to advance a wide range of initiatives. At the international level, I have joined efforts at the United Nations to decriminalize homosexuality around the world. Here at home, I continue to support measures to bring the full spectrum of equal rights to LGBT Americans. These measures include enhancing hate crimes laws, supporting civil unions and Federal rights for LGBT couples, outlawing discrimination in the workplace, ensuring adoption rights, and ending the existing "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy in a way that strengthens our Armed Forces and our national security.
"NOW, THEREFORE, I, BARACK OBAMA, President of the United States of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim June 2009 as Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Pride Month. I call upon the people of the United States to turn back discrimination and prejudice everywhere it exists.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this first day of June, in the year of our Lord two thousand nine, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and thirty-third."
BARACK OBAMA
One of the reasons this topic is so heated in our country is because there is no gray area. It is black and white. There is a right, and there is a wrong. There is not very much, if any, common ground. Either homosexuality is a sin, or it isn't. Either protecting traditional marriage is the right thing to do, or it's not. Either allowing gay couples to adopt is good, or it's bad. Black...or white. No middle ground.
As of right now the majority of Americans are for protecting marriage. Also, the majority of Americans voted for Barack. Why the disparity? Most people I talked to that are for traditional marriage but voted for Barack justified the vote saying that the president has little to do with that topic. Still, why would you vote for someone that does not share your same morals and core beliefs? As we are seeing, the President can meddle in any topic at any time because he is the president. Do the majority of Americans want and LGBT pride month? I'm pretty sure they don't. But we voted for him...serves us right.
It seems as though the voice of the righteous is fading, and the voice of immoral and wicked is rising. It seems as though the righteous are shrinking and the wicked are strengthening. The righteous are becoming more ashamed and embarrassed, and the wicked more bold. The righteous are trying to be more politically correct, while the wicked are defining politically correct.
As The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints stays constant and true, it will continue to be the brunt of persecution. That's okay, I'm okay with persecution as long as we are standing for what is good and true. We live in a day where good is called evil and evil good. Those who stand for right are called bigots and haters. Those who stand for that which is wrong are heroed as loving and compassionate. Call me what you will, I will never 'celebrate' LGBT pride month.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Presidential-Proclamation-LGBT-Pride-Month/
Here are just a couple of paragraphs in case you don't want to read the whole thing.
"My Administration has partnered with the LGBT community to advance a wide range of initiatives. At the international level, I have joined efforts at the United Nations to decriminalize homosexuality around the world. Here at home, I continue to support measures to bring the full spectrum of equal rights to LGBT Americans. These measures include enhancing hate crimes laws, supporting civil unions and Federal rights for LGBT couples, outlawing discrimination in the workplace, ensuring adoption rights, and ending the existing "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy in a way that strengthens our Armed Forces and our national security.
"NOW, THEREFORE, I, BARACK OBAMA, President of the United States of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim June 2009 as Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Pride Month. I call upon the people of the United States to turn back discrimination and prejudice everywhere it exists.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this first day of June, in the year of our Lord two thousand nine, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and thirty-third."
BARACK OBAMA
One of the reasons this topic is so heated in our country is because there is no gray area. It is black and white. There is a right, and there is a wrong. There is not very much, if any, common ground. Either homosexuality is a sin, or it isn't. Either protecting traditional marriage is the right thing to do, or it's not. Either allowing gay couples to adopt is good, or it's bad. Black...or white. No middle ground.
As of right now the majority of Americans are for protecting marriage. Also, the majority of Americans voted for Barack. Why the disparity? Most people I talked to that are for traditional marriage but voted for Barack justified the vote saying that the president has little to do with that topic. Still, why would you vote for someone that does not share your same morals and core beliefs? As we are seeing, the President can meddle in any topic at any time because he is the president. Do the majority of Americans want and LGBT pride month? I'm pretty sure they don't. But we voted for him...serves us right.
It seems as though the voice of the righteous is fading, and the voice of immoral and wicked is rising. It seems as though the righteous are shrinking and the wicked are strengthening. The righteous are becoming more ashamed and embarrassed, and the wicked more bold. The righteous are trying to be more politically correct, while the wicked are defining politically correct.
As The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints stays constant and true, it will continue to be the brunt of persecution. That's okay, I'm okay with persecution as long as we are standing for what is good and true. We live in a day where good is called evil and evil good. Those who stand for right are called bigots and haters. Those who stand for that which is wrong are heroed as loving and compassionate. Call me what you will, I will never 'celebrate' LGBT pride month.
Friday, May 15, 2009
Government
"It has been said that all Government is an evil. It would be more proper to say that the necessity of any Government is a misfortune. This necessity however exists; and the problem to be solved is, not what form of Government is perfect, but which of the forms is least imperfect."
--James Madison, to an unidentified correspondent, 1833
This is definitely a different attitude towards government than what our nation seems to have now. If we stub a toe, we want the government to put a band-aid on it. We should become more self-reliant as a nation and then our need for bigger government would diminish. Health care, welfare, government bailouts, FEMA, and even public schools (and many more) were never intended to be a part of our federal government. It is and always has been human nature to want a big government. We even see that in the Book of Mormon. When Lehi died, the people wanted Nephi to be their king. Nephi warned the people against this but they insisted. Americans continue to insist on bigger and bigger government. The problem with this is it is very easy to go bigger, but almost impossible to go smaller.
--James Madison, to an unidentified correspondent, 1833
This is definitely a different attitude towards government than what our nation seems to have now. If we stub a toe, we want the government to put a band-aid on it. We should become more self-reliant as a nation and then our need for bigger government would diminish. Health care, welfare, government bailouts, FEMA, and even public schools (and many more) were never intended to be a part of our federal government. It is and always has been human nature to want a big government. We even see that in the Book of Mormon. When Lehi died, the people wanted Nephi to be their king. Nephi warned the people against this but they insisted. Americans continue to insist on bigger and bigger government. The problem with this is it is very easy to go bigger, but almost impossible to go smaller.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
