Moral Arguments

Tea Partiers as Christians – Big Fail

Non-negotiable Core Beliefs from TeaParty.org’s Dale Robertson
(Founder/President) and my comments in italics.

Illegal Aliens are illegal.
Pro-Domestic Employment is indispensable.
Stronger Military is essential.
Gun ownership is sacred.
Government must be downsized.
National Budget must be balanced.
Deficit Spending will end.
Bail-out and Stimulus Plans are illegal.
Reduce Personal Income Taxes a must.
Reduce Business Income Taxes is mandatory.
Intrusive Government Stopped.
English only is required.
Traditional Family Values are encouraged.
Common Sense Constitutional Conservative
Self-Governance is our mode of operation.

….and Yes, we are a Christian Nation!

So, let’s start with the hilarious first, “Yes, we are a Christian Nation!” Well, not hilarious, just sad. Look through all of those and tell me which items would get Jesus all fired up? Nothing about universal access to health care (“when I was sick”), nothing about the unprecedented dependence on Food Stamps, not only to buy food (“when I was hungry”), but for subsistence needs (“when I was naked”), nor anything about our embarrassingly high incarceration rates for Americans (“when I was a prisoner”).

But these “Christians” did include those damn illegal aliens!! The Bible is terribly draconian on aliens:
Exodus 22: Do no wrong to a man from a strange country, and do not be hard on him; for you yourselves were living in a strange country, in the land of Egypt
And Leviticus is even worse: The alien living with you must be treated as one of your native-born. Love him as yourself, for you were aliens in Egypt. I am the LORD your God.
Anyway, may as well go through the rest of his list, briefly.
Pro-domestic employment. OK, we can agree on this one. However, I expect their view is very anti-union, which the Pope, at least (he’s Christian, right?) opposes.

Thus, the encyclical rises strongly to the defense of labor unions, which are still vehemently opposed by large numbers of politically conservative Catholics. The pope notes that unions “have always been encouraged and supported by the Church.

Stronger Military. How about smarter military? How abut defunding “Star Wars,” and preparing for the wars we are fighting and will fight in the future: “wars” against terrorist organizations. Oh, wait, that’s law enforcement and intelligence. Then how about focusing the Pentagon on human resources instead of lining the pockets of Haliburton, Blackwater, Northrup and the rest of the Military industrial complex. Eisenhower was so prescient and wise:

Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. The cost of one modern heavy bomber is this: a modern brick school in more than 30 cities. It is two electric power plants, each serving a town of 60,000 population. It is two fine, fully equipped hospitals. It is some fifty miles of concrete pavement. We pay for a single fighter plane with a half million bushels of wheat. We pay for a single destroyer with new homes that could have housed more than 8,000 people. This is, I repeat, the best way of life to be found on the road the world has been taking. This is not a way of life at all, in any true sense. Under the cloud of threatening war, it is humanity hanging from a cross of iron. … Is there no other way the world may live?

Gun Ownership is sacred. Fine, this is way low on my list of issues to get exorcised about but gun rights are not unlimited. Again, I don’t see this as being near the top of Jesus’ list for important aspects of national governance. Also, why is it that the most heinous crimes always seem to be done with legally purchased guns?
Government must be downsized, National Budget must be balanced, Deficit Spending will end. Reduce Personal Income Taxes a must. Reduce Business Income Taxes is mandatory.
Typical right wing BS. Run up the most massive deficits in the history of the country, first under Reagan and again under Bush, then bitch about it as Democrats try to clean up the mess (Clinton for Reagan, and Obama for Bush). I’ll let you all in on a little secret: Tax cuts never have, never will pay for themselves. “Supply side” economics, wherein lightening the tax burden on the wealthy so that they will supply more products and thus stimulate demand is as S-T-U-P-I-D as it sounds. Besides, investment income is taxed at such low rates already, the wealthiest in America have far lower tax rates than the rest of us! Patriots like Teddy Roosevelt would be out there railing against this injustice.
Bail-out and Stimulus Plans are illegal. Very stupid, poorly thought out, way too generous to Wall Street with not nearly enough regulatory “burden” injected in return for the favors. Did anybody else notice that the same stupid Ayn Rand- Milton Friedman stupidity that led to the S&L Bailout under Reagan-Bush I led Phil Gramm to believe they could do even more damage to the tenuous regulatory environment in place in the 90’s and everything would turn out just swell – for the “Fortunate 400”, and the pretty fortunate 40,000.
Intrusive Government Stopped. This is just so funny because of where I expect they see the government is being too intrusive and where I think it is too intrusive. I am one of those silly Bill of Rights types, and so I reject pretty much every intrusion into the lives of Americans that the chickens in the Bush administration thought were so vital to national security. And yet, I have been paying attention enough to realize that intrusions into the affairs of Corporate America in general, and Wall Street gambling, in particular, are vital to the stability and prosperity of the country.
English only is required. I guess this goes up above with how we treat each other and the strangers among us. I think Jesus, who spoke Aramaic, while living under Roman rule, might have a touch of sympathy for the non-English speaking.
Traditional Family Values are encouraged. This is a little tricky, in that Jesus and Christian tradition is so clearly liberal in matters of economics, social justice, immigration, etc., and yet Jesus was pretty darn tough on sexual issues. So, I’ll make an offer to the Tea Partiers: You make Jesus’ rule against divorce into law, help us with the big social justice issues like universal health care, reforming prisons, strengthening workers rights, and more, and then we’ll go after gay marriage. Deal?
Common Sense Constitutional Conservative Self-Governance is our mode of operation. I really don’t know what the heck this means, but I did find it amusing that there is another organization called “We the People” (From the Constitution – get it?) that is an ANTI-government, Tea Party type organization.
But I do think this last bit is critical: I think progressives view government as “us” (as in “We the People”) and conservatives view government – when they are not in power – as them. Even when my party was not in power, I still believed government was us, but that we had failed our country by allowing the Siths to win so many elections.
So, in summary, these people who constantly complain that we are not acting as a Christian Nation, seem to completely miss the point of Christianity, the social justice mission, the generosity of heart, the embracing of the weak, the poor, the hungry the sick, the loving of those NOT like us :

If you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? Even ‘sinners’ love those who love them. And if you do good to those who are good to you, what credit is that to you? Even ‘sinners’ do that. (Luke 6)

Cheers,
———
Update just to add this from
“…How terrible it will be for those who make unfair laws, and those who write laws that make life hard for people. They are not fair to the poor, and they rob my people of their rights. They allow people to steal from widows and to take from orphans what really belongs to them. (Is 10:1-2 NCV)”

Southern Baptist Convention: Politics trump morality

Unbelievably (or not), considering Richard Land’s history, this position on health reform:

In his August 18, 209 press release, Dr. Land states that he opposes the current House bill, H.R. 3200, but does believe that health care reform is needed.
According to Land, he “recognize[s] the need to rework certain elements of the health care equation in America. While the health care industry in the U.S. is relatively robust, it is not without flaws. And there is a segment of the American population, either because of their income level or their medical condition, that needs responsible and well-regulated government assistance.”
Dr. Land doesn’t believe that greater government involvement is the answer. Dr. Land believes that tort reform is one of the biggest avenues of savings in the health care industry. He states, “If we had tort reform, just tort reform, getting the stinking, rotten lawyers out of the business of ambulance chasing, we would eliminate about $50 billion of medical costs every year that doctors have to pay for malpractice insurance which is then passed on to you in the form of bills.”
Dr. Land does believe that in a country as prosperous as the United States, every one should have guaranteed access to some level of health care, though he rejects government involvement. According to Land, the “answer is to provide alternatives and incentives for most people to be in health care that they provide for themselves, and then the government can focus like a laser on those who aren’t able to provide it for themselves and you give them a basic level of health care. If I could use the car analogy, everybody should have a Chevrolet. Those who can afford it can get Cadillacs or even Mercedes.”

It is amazing that Mr. Land’s SBC seems to have more in common philisophically with Ayn Rand than Jesus Christ. Or the Pope.

The Ayn Randers and HC Reform

I was on a couple web sites today, the Mayo Clinic Health Policy Center’s and Ezra Klein’s, and looking at the comments is so disheartening. That people who consider themselves good people (Christians, secular humanists, whatever) can swallow the Ayn Rand crap and not have their heads explode from the cognitive dissonance is amazing.

One particular line of attack that disgusted me was this smug argument that food is necessary for life, why don’t we have national food insurance or some similar drivel.

My response on Ezra’s blog:

The difference between food and health care is several orders of magnitude.

I don’t see patients in my ICU beds due to lack of food, but due to lack of access to care. People rarely lose their homes, their cars, or file for bankruptcy due to food costs.

We have, as a nation, decided to help those in hunger with food stamps, WIC and other programs, we decided in 1965 that allowing the elderly to die and suffer without access to health care was no longer acceptable, and in 1935, we decided allowing the elderly to really suffer in poverty and hunger was not acceptable.

We are the only modern nation that still seems to believe, based upon our lack of action, that our poor do not deserve access to good quality health care on at least a comparable footing with the rest of us.
Go find a physician or a nurse and have a laugh with them with your comparison. Nearly all will be aghast at your callousness. You will find some who support you, but their numbers are thankfully dwindling. Those in the leadership of medicine KNOW that we must advocate for high quality health care for all Americans, not just those who can afford it.

I’ve compiled a list of physicians organizations advocating for health care, to give you an idea of how cold your statements are to those of us in the front lines actually taking care of those “undeserving sick.”

And some anecdotes for you and your friends to have a laugh about.

George Lakoff: The PolicySpeak Disaster for Health Care

George Lakoff: The PolicySpeak Disaster for Health Care:

The narrative is simple:
Insurance company plans have failed to care for our people. They profit from denying care. Americans care about one another. An American plan is both the moral and practical alternative to provide care for our people.

The insurance companies are doing their worst, spreading lies in an attempt to maintain their profits and keep Americans from getting the care they so desperately need. You, our citizens, must be the heroes. Stand up, and speak up, for an American plan.
Language
As for language, the term ‘public option’ is boring. Yes, it is public, and yes, it is an option, but it does not get to the moral and inspiring idea. Call it the American Plan, because that’s what it really is.
The American Plan. Health care is a patriotic issue. It is what your countrymen are engaged in because Americans care about each other. The right wing understands this well. It’s got conservative veterans at Town Hall meeting shouting things like, ‘I fought for this country in Vietnam, and I’m fight for it here.’ Progressives should be stressing the patriotic nature of having our nation guaranteeing care for our people.
A Health Care Emergency. Americans are suffering and dying because of the failure of insurance company health care. 50 million have no insurance at all, and millions of those who do are denied necessary care or lose their insurance. We can’t wait any longer. It’s an emergency. We have to act now to end the suffering and death.
Doctor-Patient care. This is what the public plan is really about. Call it that. You have said it, buried in PolicySpeak. Use the slogan. Repeat it. Have every spokesperson repeat it.
Coverage is not care. You think you’re insured. You very well may not be, because insurance companies make money by denying you care.
Deny you care… Use the words. That’s what all the paperwork and administrative costs of insurance companies are about – denying you care if they can.
Insurance company profit-based plans. The bottom line is the bottom line for insurance companies. Say it.

Private Taxation. Insurance companies have the power to tax and they tax the public mightily. When 20% – 30% of payments do not go to health care, but to denying care and profiting from it, that constitutes a tax on the 96% of voters that
have health care. But the tax does not go to benefit those who are taxed; it
benefits managers and investors. And the people taxed have no representation.
Insurance company health care is a huge example of taxation without representation. And you can’t vote out the people who have taxed you. The American Plan offers an alternative to private taxation.
Is it time for progressive tea parties at insurance company offices?

Doctors care; insurance companies don’t. A public plan aims to put care back into the hands of doctors.
Insurance company bureaucrats. Obama mentions them, but there is no consistent uproar about them. The term needs to come into common parlance.

Insurance companies ration care. Say it and ask the right questions: Have you ever had to wait more than a week for an authorization? Have you ever had an authorization turned down? Have you had to wait months to see a specialist? Does
you primary care physician have to rush you through? Have your out-of-pocket
costs gone up? Ask these questions. You know the answers. It’s because insurance
companies have been rationing care. Say it.
Insurance companies are inefficient and wasteful. A large chunk of your health care dollar is not going for health care when you buy from insurance companies.
Insurance companies govern your lives. They have more power over you than even governments have. They make life and death decisions. And they are accountable only to profit, not to citizens.

The health care failure is an insurance company failure. Why keep a failing system? Augment it. Give an alternative.

Conservatives Live in a Different Moral Universe — And Here’s Why It Matters | | AlterNet

Conservatives Live in a Different Moral Universe — And Here’s Why It Matters AlterNet:

With all that in mind, Haidt identified five foundational moral impulses. As succinctly defined by Northwestern University’s McAdams, they are:

• Harm/care. It is wrong to hurt people; it is good to relieve suffering.
• Fairness/reciprocity. Justice and fairness are good; people have certain rights
that need to be upheld in social interactions.
• In-group loyalty. People should be true to their group and be wary of threats from the outside. Allegiance, loyalty and patriotism are virtues; betrayal is bad.
• Authority/respect. People should respect social hierarchy; social order is
necessary for human life.
• Purity/sanctity. The body and certain aspects of life are sacred. Cleanliness and health, as well as their derivatives of chastity and piety, are all good. Pollution, contamination and the associated character traits of lust and greed are all bad.

Haidt’s research reveals that liberals feel strongly about the first two dimensions — preventing harm and ensuring fairness — but often feel little, or even feel negatively, about the other three. Conservatives, on the other hand, are drawn to loyalty, authority and purity, which liberals tend to think of as backward or outdated.
People on the right acknowledge the importance of harm prevention and fairness
but not with quite the same energy or passion as those on the left.

Libertarian essayist Will Wilkinson of the Cato Institute — one of many self-reflective political thinkers who are intrigued by Haidt’s hypothesis — puts it this way: ‘While the five foundations are universal, cultures build upon each to varying degrees. Imagine five adjustable slides on a stereo equalizer that can be turned up or down to produce different balances of sound. An equalizer preset like ‘Show Tunes’ will turn down the bass and ‘Hip Hop’ will turn it up, but neither turns it off.

A fascinating piece. I post it here because I think it would be wise to run through these five principles as we write letters, engage in debate, etc.

Art Caplan Lecture – Society of Critical Care Medicine

SCCM – Society of Critical Care Medicine:
“Max Weil Honorary Lecture
Arthur Caplan, MD
University of Pennsylvania
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA
Beyond Band-Aids: How to Cure America’s Ailing Healthcare System
Arthur Caplan, MD, argued that the United States healthcare system is broken, and it is important to evaluate the various healthcare reform proposals and their political feasibility. Healthcare professionals should have a prominent place in the discussion to ensure ethical and meaningful reforms.”

Dr. Caplan spent the bulk of his time making the ethical case for healthcare reform. He based his argument on the right to opportunity, or equal opportunity, of all citizens to be free from the encumbrances of illnesses untreated due to lack of personal resources or lack of resources from our social safety net.

Fair enough, but I think this argument will fall flat, of course, to those who oppose health care reform of any stripe, but I think it rings peculiarly hollow to most others as well, including the most fevered advocates for reform.

I will be flagging my ignorance of formal ethics and bioethics here, as I am, like most, simply an amateur (but nonetheless opinionated) ethicist. (But, I am an intensivist, so maybe I am semi-pro?)
I think in addressing health care professionals, it is reasonable to appeal to their professionalism. In the Charter on Medical Professionalism, we are called to advocate for Social Justice:

“Principle of social justice. The medical profession must promote justice in the health care system, including the fair distribution of health care resources. Physicians should work actively to eliminate discrimination in health care, whether based on race, gender, socioeconomic status, ethnicity, religion, or any other social category. “

And this argument does need to be made to specialty physician organizations. Repeatedly. Many of our organizations have devolved into glorified trade organizations, only springing into action when income or clinical territory are threatened. We need to call ourselves and our colleagues to the better angels of our nature.

But this is really only the tip of the iceberg required to make the ethical case for universal healthcare. The real case rests on our common humanity, our common respect for the dignity of man, The Golden Rule.

A recent program aired on Bill Moyers Journal called “Beyond Our Differences”, which explored the common themes of all world religions. It is a terrific program and I advise everyone to watch it, preferably with your family.

Is there a moral philosophy on the planet that does not require us to care for the least among us? Is there one which does not require us to care for the poor, the sick, the hungry to the best of our ability? Is there one that does not require us to respect the dignity of our fellow humans?

I like to joke that there is such a philosophy, Ayn Rand’s Objectivism. Maybe there are other philisophical schools of thought that also reject these tenets, I will let the real philosophers out there correct me. But all religions, east and west, and secular humanism all carry forward this strong ethical mandate. As I look through my “Social Justice” subject tag, quite a lot are covered: Catholics and the Jesuits, Charles Dickens (and Protestants and humanists), physicians, Jews, and even the self-intersted. The “Beyond Our Differences” program covers these and more.

So, how to make the ethical argument? I think we must rely on our common humanity, our common philosphy of honoring the dignity of our fellow humans and doing our duty as citizens of a great country to “promote the general Welfare”.

But better yet, let me sum it up as Uwe Reinhardt would, “Go explain to your God why you cannot do this, and he will laugh at you.”