Understanding Obamacare - Part III

In Part I, I discussed how the stage was set for the expectation of government provided health care and the hope that we’d get something for nothing. Part II addressed whether Obamacare was truly “affordable” for the average American.

In this part, I take a look at the dark underbelly of the legislation and what I believe is the real strategy behind the designers.

Small businesses are the backbone of our economy. While the big businesses get all the press, it is the small businesses that form the foundation and security of our economy. Headlines carry news about the intended opening of an Amazon headquarter might be, or the earnings of Apple, or the outsourcing of Chevrolet products, but the nitty-gritty mom and pop establishment, the independent insurance agent, the gymnastics lessons for your kids, the attorney on the corner, the lady who opened the McDonald’s franchise in your town, the couple who rolled the dice on the hair salon – they are the basis for our economy.

Some statistics: A small business is any business entity that employs fewer than 500 employees. Small businesses constitute 99.7% of all private businesses employing firms. Small businesses historically provide more than 65% of all newly created jobs. Their exports constitute 97.5% of the total exported goods. The small business sector is comprised of 52% home-based companies. (Sources: US Dept of Commerce; Census Bureau, and International Trade Administration.) “

Before we go further, here’s an important question: Did you know that when liberal politicians attack “the wealthy” as a group, which needs to pay more taxes, they are generally attacking small businesses? It’s true, and here’s why: A basic number is this - $380,000 per year. That sounds like a lot of cash, right? Well, it is if someone hands it to you, tax free. But if you’re a small businessman or woman, that number doesn’t represent your take-home pay. No, that is how much you pulled in to put you in the top 1%, but you still have a lot of obligations to meet – like employee salary and benefits, like income taxes, like improvements, like advertising, like covering theft or vandalism, and much, much more. The typical business owner who forms the fabric of our economy is not a fat-cat riding to work in a limo and taking long vacations in a glamorous location (that’s for Michelle Obama or the administrators of the GAO). No, ask most business owners and they’ll honestly tell you they haven’t taken a vacation in the last couple years, and… and… didn’t take a salary because after paying the business expenses, there was nothing left. Are they complaining? No, that’s a fact of life they’ve come to expect; they’ll work hard for many years, and hopefully, at some point, the business will turn the corner and a real payday and profitability will provide their security for retirement.

So, where does Obamacare fit into this discussion? Workers need healthcare. Workers look for a job that will include healthcare benefits. Under the Affordable Health Care Act, businesses with more than 50 employees must offer health care insurance for their employees, or pay a TAX per employee for failing to do so. Currently, the TAX for failing to offer insurance is $2,000 per employee, with the first 30 employees being exempted – (go figure). So a business with 51 employees will pay $42,000.00 in penalty TAXES  in 2014 if they do not offer insurance. As we saw in Part II, the insurance premiums offered by the Affordable Health Care Act are much greater than affordable by most standards – for low income earners. So, let’s say that an employer hires mostly 35 year-olds, and their premium would be approximately $400/month, or $4,800.00 per year. For starters, if you are being forced by the government to provide this or pay a TAX, and feel that you’re business is in jeopardy, would you rather pay $4,800.00 per year for 51 employees ($244,800.00) or the $2,000 TAX times 21 employees ($42,000.00)?

Okay, now that we realize the employer saves $200,000+ by paying the TAX, we still have 51 people without medical insurance, and a business with $42,000.00 less in profits with which to grow – and hopefully hire more unemployed people. So, the employees still don’t have insurance, the backbone of our economy – small businesses – have $42,000 less, and the TAX disappears into a labyrinth of bureaucracy that hires more government workers to “administrate” the system – employees who will be guaranteed an income surpassing those employed by the small business and guaranteed a benefits and retirement package that must be paid by the taxpayer.

Now, if you are a small businessman or woman, at what point will you stop expanding? Forty-nine employees or fifty? See, this law serves to put a lid on the growth of small businesses. As soon as they exceed 50 employees, they are penalized for doing so due to mandated health care. When so many people are unemployed and underemployed, do we really want the backbone of the American economy to shy away from growth? Do we really want to become a country that discourages people from developing into Ford, Microsoft, Apple, Nike, etc because by doing so, the government is going to turn the entrepreneurs into demons who are portrayed as selfish, greedy land barons as opposed to innovators who provide cutting edge products and putting tons of people to work? Or assuming the business remains “small” – if these businesses are creating 65% of all new jobs in America, do we really want to put roadblocks in their path that serve to interfere with job creation?

This effect is not by mistake. Obama and those behind this legislation did not overlook this outcome. Call me a conspiracy theorist, but I believe it’s more the “end game” than an unfortunate outcome. Barack Hussein Obama has never run a business, nor held a job in the private sector. He is unabashedly socialist – his Congressional record and Presidential actions stand ready to prove this. Our President, despite his rhetoric before crowds, wants the American public to become dependent on government jobs and government entitlements. It’s the easiest path to a redistribution of wealth, and dependency on the cradle-to-grave expectation.

Undoubtedly, every person would like to have health care. But does that make it a RIGHT? Our ancestry in America cherished the right to have an opportunity, as the Declaration of Independence states “…the pursuit of happiness…” and being happy would seem to include being healthy. The key word, though, is pursuit. As much as it would be “nice” for all people to have full access to top-of-the-line healthcare, the question still must be answered, Can we afford this, and is the government of the People and by the People empowered to force the People to pick up the tab?  When the responding law to the desire to provide healthcare puts us in the position of being required to buy government care the typical family cannot afford, while simultaneously punishing businesses that make up the foundation of our economy, AND taxing both businesses and individuals for not buying the mandated insurance, I conclude that our government has moved beyond the intended limited government our Founders designed, and well onto the path of intrusion and tyranny. And if tyranny sounds like I’m using hyperbole to make my point, I encourage you to study the events which led to our Country’s War of Independence; the Founders well understood that once they capitulated on principle – giving up their rights, even a little, the die was cast for anticipating an onslaught of attacks, which put the British government more and more in control of every nuance of what constituted individual freedom.

I Defer to David Kaiser...

Interrupting Part III of Obamacare, I felt compelled to present the following from an historian by the name of David Kaiser. Here is a reprint...

David Kaiser is a respected historian whose published works have covered a broad range of topics, from European Warfare to American League Baseball. Born in 1947, the son of a diplomat, Kaiser spent his childhood in three capital cities: Washington D.C., Albany, New York, and Dakar, Senegal .. He attended Harvard University , graduating there in 1969 with a B.A. in history. He then spent several years more at Harvard, gaining a PhD in history, which he obtained in 1976.. He served in the Army Reserve from 1970 to 1976.
He is a professor in the Strategy and Policy Department of the United States Naval War College . He has previously taught at Carnegie Mellon, Williams College, and Harvard University . Kaiser's latest book, The Road to Dallas, about the Kennedy assassination, was just published by Harvard University Press.

History Unfolding -  I am a student of history. Professionally, I have written 15 books on history that have been published in six languages, and I have studied history all my life. I have come to think there is something monumentally large afoot, and I do not believe it is simply a banking crisis, or a mortgage crisis, or a credit crisis. Yes these exist, but they are merely single facets on a very large gemstone that is only now coming into a sharper focus...
Something of historic proportions is happening. I can sense it because I know how it feels, smells, what it looks like, and how people react to it. Yes, a perfect storm may be brewing, but there is something happening within our country that has been evolving for about ten to fifteen years. The pace has dramatically quickened in the past two.
We demand and then codify into law the requirement that our banks make massive loans to people we know they can never pay back? Why?
We learned just days ago that the Federal Reserve, which has little or no real oversight by anyone, has "loaned" two trillion dollars (that is $2,000,000,000,000) over the past few months, but will not tell us to whom or why or disclose the terms. That is our money. Yours and mine. And that is three times the $700 billion we all argued about so strenuously just this past September. Who has this money? Why do they have it? Why are the terms unavailable to us? Who asked for it? Who authorized it? I thought this was a government of "we the people," who loaned our powers to our elected leaders. Apparently not.

We have spent two or more decades intentionally de-industrializing our economy... Why?

We have intentionally dumbed down our schools, ignored our history, and no longer teach our founding documents, why we are exceptional, and why we are worth preserving. Students by and large cannot write, think critically, read, or articulate. Parents are not revolting, teachers are not picketing, school boards continue to back mediocrity. Why?

We have now established the precedent of protesting every close election (violently in California over a proposition that is so controversial that it simply wants marriage to remain defined as between one man and one woman. Did you ever think such a thing possible just a decade ago?) We have corrupted our sacred political process by allowing unelected judges to write laws that radically change our way of life, and then mainstream Marxist groups like ACORN and others to turn our voting system into a banana republic. To what purpose?

Now our mortgage industry is collapsing, housing prices are in free fall, major industries are failing, our banking system is on the verge of collapse, social security is nearly bankrupt, as is Medicare and our entire government. Our education system is worse than a joke (I teach college and I know precisely what I am talking about) - the list is staggering in its length, breadth, and depth.. It is potentially 1929 x ten...And we are at war with an enemy we cannot even name for fear of offending people of the same religion, who, in turn, cannot wait to slit the throats of your children if they have the opportunity to do so.

And finally, we have elected a man that no one really knows anything about, who has never run so much as dairy Queen, let alone a town as big as Wasilla , Alaska ... All of his associations and alliances are with real radicals in their chosen fields of employment, and everything we learn about him, drip by drip, is unsettling if not downright scary (Surely you have heard him speak about his idea to create and fund a mandatory civilian defense force stronger than our military for use inside our borders? No? Oh, of course. The media would never play that for you over and over and then demand he answer it. Sarah Palin's pregnant daughter and $150,000 wardrobe are more important.)

Mr. Obama's winning platform can be boiled down to one word: Change. Why?

I have never been so afraid for my country and for my children as I am now.

This man campaigned on bringing people together, something he has never, ever done in his professional life. In my assessment, Obama will divide us along philosophical lines, push us apart, and then try to realign the pieces into a new and different power structure. Change is indeed coming. And when it comes, you will never see the same nation again.

And that is only the beginning..

As a serious student of history, I thought I would never come to experience what the ordinary, moral German must have felt in the mid-1930s In those times, the "savior" was a former smooth-talking rabble-rouser from the streets, about whom the average German knew next to nothing. What they should have known was that he was associated with groups that shouted, shoved, and pushed around people with whom they disagreed; he edged his way onto the political stage through great oratory. Conservative "losers" read it right now.

And there were the promises. Economic times were tough, people were losing jobs, and he was a great speaker. And he smiled and frowned and waved a lot. And people, even newspapers, were afraid to speak out for fear that his "brown shirts" would bully and beat them into submission. Which they did - regularly. And then, he was duly elected to office, while a full-throttled economic crisis bloomed at hand - the Great Depression. Slowly, but surely he seized the controls of government power, person by person, department by department, bureaucracy by bureaucracy. The children of German citizens were at first, encouraged to join a Youth Movement in his name where they were taught exactly what to think. Later, they were required to do so. No Jews of course, How did he get people on his side? He did it by promising jobs to the jobless, money to the money-less, and rewards for the military-industrial complex. He did it by indoctrinating the children, advocating gun control, health care for all, better wages, better jobs, and promising to re-instill pride once again in the country, across Europe , and across the world. He did it with a compliant media - did you know that? And he did this all in the name of justice and .... . ... change. And the people surely got what they voted for.

If you think I am exaggerating, look it up. It's all there in the history books.

So read your history books. Many people of conscience objected in 1933 and were shouted down, called names, laughed at, and ridiculed. When Winston Churchill pointed out the obvious in the late 1930s while seated in the House of Lords in England (he was not yet Prime Minister), he was booed into his seat and called a crazy troublemaker. He was right, though. And the world came to regret that he was not listened to.

Do not forget that Germany was the most educated, the most cultured country in Europe . It was full of music, art, museums, hospitals, laboratories, and universities. And yet, in less than six years (a shorter time span than just two terms of the U. S. presidency) it was rounding up its own citizens, killing others, abrogating its laws, turning children against parents, and neighbors against neighbors.. All with the best of intentions, of course.. The road to Hell is paved with them.

As a practical thinker, one not overly prone to emotional decisions, I have a choice: I can either believe what the objective pieces of evidence tell me (even if they make me cringe with disgust); I can believe what history is shouting to me from across the chasm of seven decades; or I can hope I am wrong by closing my eyes, having another latte, and ignoring what is transpiring around me..

I choose to believe the evidence. No doubt some people will scoff at me, others laugh, or think I am foolish, naive, or both. To some degree, perhaps I am. But I have never been afraid to look people in the eye and tell them exactly what I believe-and why I believe it.

I pray I am wrong. I do not think I am. Perhaps the only hope is our vote in the next elections.

David Kaiser
Jamestown , Rhode Island United States

If you have read this far, you are concerned. What will you do with this information? Far too many people are remaining silent, allowing others to speak up, and afraid of offending their friends and associates. Our heritage is coming apart at the seams. Please, whatever influence you have with others, stand up for the sake of America. Very few can understand how something like the Holocaust in Germany could ever happen. That may seem melodramatic at this point, but our country is rapidly sliding into socialism and fascism. It will take people like you and me to make a stand - ordinary people who are willing to oppose the decline of our country. Thanks, Jim

Understanding Obamacare – Part 2

In my previous blog, I explained, from my understanding, how the stage was set for people to be receptive to the idea of National Health Care. (See Understanding Obamacare - Part I.)

Now that it has become the law and subsequently passed muster under the inspection of the Supreme Court, what’s so bad about it? There are three effects (that I’ve learned – probably more as time goes on) that Americans will come to appreciate. Obamacare is not really affordable; Obamacare will eventually dictate the level of health care Americans can obtain; and Obamacare, by design, punishes the heart of our economy – small businesses. This entry addresses my thesis that Obamacare is not affordable to those who are uninsured.

Obamacare is Not Really Affordable

Sadly, most Americans are gullible when it comes to campaign promises. If a politician and his campaigners repeat the same promise enough times, and it “tickles the ears” of the listeners – meaning they want the promise to be true – the audience will simply accept the promise without questioning the probability or likelihood of that promise being fulfilled. This becomes doubly true when the mainstream media fails to fulfill its role of examining and investigating, and then reporting the facts. Complex issues require an unraveling and explanation in terms with which “Everyman” can grapple. If the media is not going to help us do our homework, most people are simply going to trust the promise – regardless of its inherent failings and lack of logic. In the case of Obamacare, mainstream media played the role of assisting the campaign rather than helping voters examine the facts.

Obamacare was labeled “The Affordable Health Care Act.” Affordable truly is a relative term. Implied is the notion that people who are not insured by a health care plan are in that position because they cannot afford the premiums. Contrarily, those who have health care can afford it. So really, we’re talking about people who, after paying housing, food, car insurance, utilities, and basic necessities do not have the financial ability to come up with the dollars to pay for health insurance premiums. They truly cannot afford it. So Obamacare to the rescue – his plan will be affordable. Right?

Well, let’s look at some sample premiums for obtaining health care under the Affordable Health Care Act. I live in Oregon, so I’m using the Oregon Health Authority Member Handbook, which provides premiums for both the Oregon plan in addition to the Federal plan premiums. Presently the Federal plan does not provide pricing for families – only individuals. So, I’ll use my situation as the first example to discover what Obama’s Affordable Health Care cost for me. I’m 58 and my wife is 57. We’ll go with the less expensive of the two plans offered, which is a $750 deductible (meaning, the insured pays the first $750 before the insurance starts paying). Both my wife and I are in the “Age 55-59” bracket. My son, who is 18, is still a dependent, so I need to factor him in as well. He fits into the “18-19” year-old bracket. Okay, so here goes: For me, the monthly premium would be $742, for my wife, also $742, and for my son - $295. In sum, our monthly affordable premium would be $1779.00. But remember, insurance doesn’t kick in until each of us pays, out-of-pocket, $750 to meet our deductible. So, $750 x 3 (deductibles x members of family) = $2250. If we divide that by 12, we arrive at what we’ll need to plan per month to meet that deductible: $2250 / 12 = $187.50. Now, we add in the deductible to the premium to determine what the actual monthly cost is for health care (not counting co-pays): $1779 + 187.50 = $1966.50 per month. That’s my AFFORDABLE health care.

Okay, okay, I’m an old guy. What about a younger person? One of my daughters is a single 26 year-old with no children. Her affordable health care is only $355.00 per month. Oh, before the $750 deductible. So, it’s really $417.50 per month. So, I’m sure she’ll think that is pretty cheap.

And then, I have a daughter who is a single mom with three children. She’s in the “30-34” bracket, so that’s only $396 per month. Her three children are in the “0-17” bracket, and they are just $262 per month. With four deductibles to plan on paying for, that’s 750 x 4 = 3000 / 12 = $250 per month. Thus, 396 + 262 + 262 + 262 + 250 = $1432.00 per month. Gosh, that seems really affordable for a single mom of three children.

Now, if you are wealthy, these premiums might not seem out of line. But remember, the Affordable Health Care Act was supposed to address the needs of those who could not obtain health care through traditional insurance. Going back to my example, I work, my wife works, and my son is going to college. Guess what? There is no way in the world we can afford almost $2000 per month for government health care.

My single daughter is just starting out a career as a hair stylist and esthetician. Whether she’ll have $420 available on a monthly basis just starting out, is yet to be determined.

My daughter who is a single mom of three small children? After paying for rent, food, college loans, IRS back taxes, clothing, car insurance, daycare, etc – do you honestly think she’ll have over $1400 left to pay for health care?

But wait. Some of my readers might be saying that those premiums are going to change in 2014 when the new Cost-Sharing Credits take effect. Granted, there are publications on the web that promise much lower premiums in 2014. Yep… you can find those all right. Realistically, how is that going to happen? How will premiums suddenly go down without the real cost of medical care being transferred elsewhere. I mean, why will future rates be dramatically lower? Are medical costs going up or down? Even if they were to remain stable, how would premiums for those on the government plan go down substantially? There are only three possible answers: 1) the real cost would be shifted elsewhere, meaning others would subsidize the real cost of government health care – as in a federal pool that would be shared by private insurance companies resulting in higher premiums for those who have private insurance; 2) taxes would be raised substantially to pay for government health care – just like for Social Security (which is insolvent and in danger of imminent collapse); or 3) it’s just not possible, but once again, politicians will promise the impossible, which is accepted by people who want “their ears tickled.” Once again, my dad’s lessons to me bear repeating: Money doesn’t grow on trees, and If something sounds too good to be true, it’s probably because it is too good to be true.

I’m sorry to be a “killjoy.” I’d love there to be some magic fairy dust to provide health care for all humans at a really affordable price. But there is reality with which to deal. Most Americans live on a month-to-month basis. Unlike members of Congress and the President who have a lifetime Cadillac health care plan included in their job description, the average American is trying to figure out how to pay $3 to $4 per gallon of gas to commute to work, or look for a job. Most are figuring out how to continue paying for house payments and maybe, college for their kid. It’s not that responsible people expect the government to give them health care on a platter. It’s that they are being told that health care is a mandate. Buy it or else. Or else what? Or else they’ll pay a fine. Oh wait… the Supreme Court has clarified that point. It’s not a fine, it’s a tax. A tax that Obama promised it was not.

In my next blog, I’ll address how I believe Obamacare will dictate what health care Americans will be able to access.

Understanding Obamacare - Part 1

Understanding Obamacare, for me, has come incrementally. I must admit, that while I opposed it from the beginning, my disdain was somewhat akin to meeting a huge adversary in a dark alley, knowing instinctively he was armed and dangerous, but knowing very little about his identity. And that’s the way the President and the supporters in Congress wanted it. I don’t say that lightly; it was the Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, who announced we’d have to pass the 2600 page bill and THEN find out. Like the Stimulus Bill of 2008, the public was told that matters were so urgent that there was no time to delay. Trust us. And how crafty to set a timeline of “implementing” the law by 2013, thus masking its overwhelming effects until after the 2012 election.

To the credit of many “Paul Reveres,” the call of alarm and to arms occurred before the legislation was passed and since then. But the Administration, supporters of Obamacare, and the mainstream media have successfully branded those voices as that of Chicken Little claiming the sky is falling.

Before digging into the danger of our current National Health Care law, I think it’s important to review how the stage was set for accepting it. If it’s SO bad, why was there any acceptance for its proposal?

From the start, I understood the inherent workings of insurance, and despite not liking to pay high premiums myself, understood, that if our society was to become increasingly dependent on a) not having a major medical deductible that must be borne by the insured before his insurance kicked in, and b) we, as a society, were going to continue to subsidize the cost of paying for people who do not contribute, people who practiced lifestyles that led to diseases that could only be slowed, not cured (such as AIDS), and people who ran to the doctor at the drop a hat because with such a small co-pay, it was considered commonplace to do so – well, as my dad used to say, “Money doesn’t grow on trees,” and sooner or later, we have to face the music.

If a sizeable number of people do not contribute to the system, others will have to pick up the tab. Doctors, clinics, and hospitals are still going to provide the service, but they expect to get paid because they have bills to pay and mouths to feed. So, to offset the loss, they place that loss upon the people who are paying. It’s just like when stores lose merchandise to theft; they don’t just say, “Oh well, I guess we’ll have to go out of business.” They increase the prices on the remaining merchandise to make up for the loss. And the honest customers end up paying higher prices.

When people who “enjoy” multiple sex partners finally contract HIV which at some point becomes full-blown AIDS and thus needs treatment exceeding $600,000 (ABC News) – that they don’t have – but they still get the treatment – the care providers are not going to be “compassionate” to the tune of firing their doctors and staff because they didn’t get the money. Again, people who pay for insurance are going to be looking at much steeper premiums because the unpaid bills are going to be transferred to those who pay. Same with all the teenage pregnancies. Same with the drug users who need extensive rehabilitation and nobody has the right to tell them what they can and cannot do. Same with providing abortions. Same with… Same with…

And that experiment we have been trying based on HMOs, Health Maintenance Organizations… Before the days of “maintenance” health, people paid a big, fat deductible under a Major Medical Plan (some still do, and many are going back to it.) But with health maintenance, the public became trained to run to the doctor at the first sighting of something being wrong – with the idea being that it would be cheaper to pay for prevention and early intervention than allowing an illness to get out of hand. But by encouraging people to do so, offering full benefits with very small co-payments, the plan inadvertently led to people thinking they had to go to the doctor for everything and anything. And many did. Then, when the doctors billed the insurance companies, the companies realizing that there was only so much money they had collected on premiums, had to increasingly cut back on what they would pay the health providers for services rendered. (And this is tenfold true of Medicare and Medicaid.) The providers based their budget on actual costs, but were getting short-changed. How would they make it financially? Why, they’d have to increase their prices. And the insurance companies had based their budget on what they projected the claims would be, but had underestimated the insured’s increased trips to the doctors and expectations for inexpensive treatment. Whoops. How would the stay afloat? Oh, that’s right, they’d have to increase their premiums.

And so, people like Obama, Pelosi, and everyone who hates the reality of economics, capitalized on this situation, and attacked insurance companies, attacked medical providers, attacked pharmaceutical companies, etc, and set out to convince the public that the real culprit in this was corporate greed. And 50% of America was happy to get on that bandwagon. It is much easier to blame others than look in the mirror and take responsibility for our own indulgences. When an issue can be removed from local and basic understanding, it becomes easy to think that money does grow on trees. In other words, if we simplified the dilemma, we’d understand that if John and Joe go out to dinner, and Joe won’t pay, John’s bill is going to be a lot higher and the restaurant isn’t going to just say, “Oh well, that’s okay, you don’t have to pay.” And if John and Joe skip out on their bill when the waitress isn’t looking, the restaurant will have to raise their prices on the honest customers. It’s basic. But take the issue up to the national level where the problem is spread across 50 states, countless private organizations, and over 300 million people, it’s become an attack that sounds like this: “Joe is a victim of his circumstances, but he is still entitled to eat in the restaurant – just like John. John isn’t paying his fair share – he’s rich, did nothing to deserve it, and John is expected to pay for Joe. And the restaurant owner? He’s greedy! Why should he be allowed to charge so much for his food?”

My dad also taught me “If something sounds too good to be true, it’s most likely because, in fact, it’s too good to be true.” The Bible says that another way in 2 Timothy 2:3,4 “For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but wanting to have their ears tickled, they will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance to their own desires, and will turn away their ears from the truth and will turn aside to myths.” Despite the logic of having to pay for the actual cost of services, we really do want something for nothing. Out of compassion, we want a person, regardless of his choices in life, to receive the very best care and give that person a chance for recovery, survival, and high standard of care. Granted, you as an individual cannot afford to pick up the tab by yourself, but if the whole nation chipped in… Well, the whole nation isn’t chipping in. The number of chippers is getting smaller and smaller and smaller, and their tab is getting larger and larger and larger. In other words, the number of Joes is increasing, and the number of Johns is decreasing. The owner of the restaurant is having to raise his prices because fewer Johns are going out to dinner. The restaurant is on the verge of going out of business because customers think his prices are outrageous. Meanwhile, Obama and his supporters are convincing as many people as possible that a) every Joe deserves to eat at the restaurant – not just the Johns, b) John is selfish and must be forced to pay for Joe, and c) the greedy restaurant owner is the real problem, and therefore, we need a government restaurant that will provide affordable meals for all. (And if you choose not to eat at either the government restaurant, or at that greedy expensive restaurant), you’ll have to pay a fine – oh, the Supreme Court clarified that, yes, it is indeed a TAX – for not eating.)

In my next blog, I will go more into the danger of the Affordable Health Plan, aka Obamacare, at least to the extent I’m understanding it. Thank you for reading. Oh, and my apologies to anyone out there whose name is Joe.

Let's Pretend We're A Family

When one is not directly confronted with a national issue day in and day out, it's easy to lose sight of common sense, get caught up in philosophical arguments, and throw up your hands. Most seemingly complicated politic arguments should be reduced to analysis in the setting of a family.

Let's say, your family comes home from a vacation to find a group of strangers in your living room. You ascertain that they are not violent or an immediate threat to your safety. When you ask how they got in, they admit that a hired hand brought them to your house, picked the lock, and let them in.

They explain that the last neighborhood they lived in made it almost impossible to support themselves. There were few jobs, poor schools, and food was hard to come by. When these strangers heard that you had plenty of food, income, and health care, they decided to move into your house.

In your refrigerator, they found plenty of food and felt totally satisfied. The steaks you had been saving for a special occasion had been consumed, as well as the ice cream that was supposed to be tonight's treat. One of the strangers had badly injured her leg and taken the remaining antibiotics and Vicodin you had left behind from your trip. The strangers said they would happily move into the garage or backyard and let you keep your bedrooms.

The strangers did have a few demands though. They made it clear that they would need you to add them to your health plan and pay the premiums for them. If not, you'd eventually end up paying anyway because they'd have to go to the ER for things like the flu, bee stings, cuts, and as they wouldn't have the means to pay, they'd have the billing passed on to you. Also, until they could find suitable jobs to buy their own place, they'd need you to provide them food, toiletries, cosmetics, car insurance (if you're not willing to get their car insurance, again, they'll just have any accidents passed on to you), and over the counter pharmaceuticals.

Now what I didn't clarify at the beginning is that all of this is being communicated by an interpreter for whom you will be expected to pay, as the strangers don't speak your language. They make it clear that they are not willing to learn it either. From now on, all communication in your house has to occur in both your language and theirs. And incidentally, they will need you to pay for special instruction for their children - in their native language. Oh, and they almost forgot: your children will not be allowed to progress at an educational rate they are capable of achieving. See, that would put your children ahead, and leave their children behind - at a social disadvantage. So until their children catch up, you need to get an extra job to pay for special programs for their children while yours are kept from moving too far ahead.

Questions
1. Is it cruel to tell the strangers that your income is dedicated to your family and that you cannot afford to maintain your standard of living and pay for the strangers to have the same?
2. Do you have the right to tell these people to leave?
3. Do you have the right to expect the law enforcers - who are paid with your tax dollars - to remove these people, and arrest them if they resist.
4. Do the law enforcers have the right to see their identification?
5. If the strangers break in a second time, should the law enforcers do something more dramatic than simply take them back to their old neighborhood and let them go again?

In my book, this is not a complex problem. Simply ask yourself what would you consider fair if this was a daily occurrence in your own home, and there you are. And by the way, it is happening in your own home. It's called America.

And the answer is... NO!

Well, the response to support sought for the Vietnam Mission's trip was a resounding "NO." I mean a big NO. Put it this way, I didn't even have to return any donations to donors due to my not going. That is to say, no one donated. So if you never considered donating, or considered it but decided not to, or couldn't afford to - you're in good company.


The money I had saved for the trip went to my church - designated for the heating and air conditioning system that has gone belly up. So, it's all good.

Next Stop is Vietnam?

As some of you know, I went on my first and only mission’s trip last summer. With a team of 13, I went to a rural village in Cambodia and helped build a simple church. I never planned on being a missionary; in fact, I never wanted to do so. But one of my daughters, who had participated in long-term missions in Thailand and China, talked me into it.

I went, feeling totally incompetent, but willing to use whatever strength, knowledge, and skills to help build this village church. What a joy it was to participate, interact with the village people, and help them reach a goal. The icing on the cake was learning, that by providing the village people an additional $1200 per year, the building would serve double duty as a school for the village children, and that amount would pay for materials and a teacher.

And so that was Jimmy’s big adventure, and I felt, “There, I’ve done it.” Little did I know that I would be invited to participate yet again, on a trip to Vietnam. This time, I am not being asked to go as a builder, but to capitalize on 30 years of teaching experience, and work with eager locals who want to learn English.

So why send a group of twelve from the US all the way to Vietnam for this short-term mission effort? Can’t they just find people to teach English there? They can and do. Then what is the point?

As I learned in Cambodia, the value of the outreach has very little to do with the actual labor. After all, there’s nothing magic about US workers helping build the church the people there already know how to build. True, they needed financial support to make it happen, but the Khmer people could have completed all the labor, in time, by themselves. The power of the outreach was in building relationship and being encouraged by brothers and sisters in Christ coming from the other side of the world to help. The village people were overwhelmed by the generosity. And we, the helpers, were overwhelmed by the love of the village people.

Watching the news, we get inundated with the message that America is the object of hate and wrath from abroad. In Cambodia, I did not experience that at all. In fact, the opposite was true; the rural people adored Americans. Why? Because the Americans they had met or encountered had come to help them build a simple church – which served as a place of worship, a school, and a central meeting place. I couldn’t help but wonder of the benefits of this simple act, and relatively low cost, versus government entourages meeting in austere buildings and seeking diplomacy.

In Vietnam, the “building” to take place will be in relationship and education. There is an unnamed restaurant in an unnamed city that serves as an attraction to locals coming to learn English from Americans. They also come hungering for the gospel. Despite the dangers, there is no denying the Truth. People want to know more about it, talk about their life, and are refreshed by the prayer brought by American friends who traveled a great distance to encourage them.

As I learned in preparation for my only other mission’s trip, there are “goers” and “senders.” Not everyone can, wants, or is called to go. They may believe in the value of the outreach, and desire to support it; they are the senders. Goers can, want, and are called to go. Some can pay out of pocket, and others don’t have the means to do so. I am saving, but to participate, I will need help. It is a humbling thing to ask others for support, and I don’t do so lightly.

If you believe there is value in such an outreach and would like to be a sender, I would be honored to go. I do know how to teach English, and I do know how to share the love of Jesus. I am willing, desirous, and have been called.

There is a Donate button that is run through PayPal. If you decide to help, would you please leave me a message in the PayPal process? I’d love to thank you, AND… if I don’t obtain sufficient support, I need to return your money!

Thanks for reading. In God’s Grace, Jim