How to Win a Culture War

That's just what Jim was talking about -- defeat the enemy at all costs even if it corrodes your soul.

I agree with Hannity2 in that I also think it is a call to compromise on the issue of life. But, it doesn't come down to "defeat the enemy at all costs" for me. It comes down to the fact the even if we don't want it to, the issue of Universal Health Care will hinge at least somewhat on the issue of abortion. But is is morally just for me to waive at the issue of abortion to give universal health care to the mass poor in the country who are currently without it? Or do we stick to our convictions about abortion and retract our support for health care for all? I don't think this article gives a clear answer....

That's beside the point for the following reason: "Culture wars" basically encourage people to escape ultimate responsibility and avoid the hard work required for the kind of change the warriors say they want. In my city a generation ago, people got saved, baptized and sent out on anti-abortion protests without the foggiest idea of the consequences of unintended pregnancy -- and they ended up getting nothing done.

I do agree with Rev. Wallis' opening two sentences. Nothing else needed to be said beyond that call back to a true Christian ethic.

As Abba Xanthias said: "A dog is better than I am, for he has love and he does not judge."

Study the Desert Fathers.

As Abba Poemen said: "Put compunction as the beginning of every action."

Pax vobiscum.

I get that, and you've said it, oh...nine dozen times on the Sojo blog. But please stop using that fact to dismiss individuals here who bring up valid points.

I wouldn't bring it up so much if people actually took that seriously.

How do you know that "salvaged" doesn't take this issue seriously? I've never even seen him post here before now.

He asked a good question and you didn't answer it. You dismissed and simply repeated your thoughts on past pro-life lobbying efforts.

Hannity2, would you support the "Preventing Unintended Pregnancies, Reducing the Need for Abortion and Supporting Parents Act?"

Why or why not?

I agree it's unfortunate that the issue of abortion go wound up in the health care reform debate. There'd be an easy way to prevent that: include in the bill a prohibition on abortion being considered an "essential benefit.

Here's an article on this from the NY Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/20/health/policy...

Under the House bill, for example, most insurers would have to provide an "essential benefits package" specified by the health and human services secretary, who would receive recommendations from a federal advisory committee. Opponents of abortion want Congress to prohibit inclusion of abortion in that benefits package, while advocates of abortion rights say the package should be left to medical professionals to determine.

What this is saying is that the decision whether or not abortion would be paid for with federal dollars or mandated to be covered by a private plan would be left up to the HHS. Supports of this bill are the ones who are inserting abortion politics into this debate. It doesn't have to be there.

If Jim's concerned about abortion politics delaying this bill, he should be lobbying the sponsors of this bill to disallow HHS from including abortion as an essential benefit. It will then be left up to individual private plans whether or not to cover abortion.

Exactly. Jim says he supports the status quo on abortion policy (no federal funds should pay for it, but private plans should be able to make up there own minds). All fine and good. But what if the health care reform bill changes the status quo? Then where does he stand? Who's fighting the culture war at that point?

So because some people a couple decades ago in Pittsburgh did something you thought was wrong it means salvaged's question is besides the point? Huh?

His question is a decent one: If the health care reform bill ends up forcing private plans to pay for abortion or allows federal funds to be spent on abortion, should Christians who oppose abortion accept that in the name of health reform or oppose the bill? That's not "besides the point"; it's the crux of the issue.

Look at the overall picture -- while what I was talking about was perhaps an extreme example, my bigger point is a consistent lack of insight in how to address things properly without the sloganeering and constant demonizing of the other side has cost us. One reason conservatives basically have historically had a hard time dealing with the abortion issue is because they have tended to focus only on the outcome, while the pro-choice side focuses primarily on the process -- which is were most people are. That's why groups from both sides of the abortion issue were meeting in several cities about two decades ago.

I wouldn't bring it up so much if people actually took that seriously. I mean, people ask a question, I give an obvious answer and folks complain that my answer is repetitive. It's a way of avoiding responsibility -- as I said before.

What about Germany?

My sister actually lived in Germany and she loved their health care

system and I am talking about the 90's. She was not in the military

at the time, she was living in a residential area of Germany, and she

had two kids, that the German health care system paid, 100% of the

cost for their birth. Of course that did make them citizens, but she

said she didn't have to pay for prenatal care either. She also said that

the hospitals were clean and healthy, and she got to pck her own

doctor.

It is absolutely ridiculous to even think for a moment that the federal

government would actually tell people they had to die. It is so insanely

stupid that anyone who even gave that any hint of "truth" really is

not that intelligent at all. "We hold these truths to be self evident that

all men are created equal and subject to certain unailanable rights,

among these are the rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."

Life is the very first thing that the Constitution guaruntees it's citizens.

Now I actually worked for the health care system, and insurance company

to be exact when the Medicare bill changed by Bush. Oh let me tell

you it is was absolute hell. Basically simply put, with the present new

Medicare laws, it basically means that all a company has to offer their

retires once they hit the age of 65 is the Medicare plan. I spoke to

literally thousands of people during the two years that I was there who

were in effect loosing their coverage. Their companies dropped them

down to plans that were equal to the new Medicare bills, and since these

were working class people, they were not poor enough to actually

qualify for the low income coverage.

I talked to one man who was 92 years old had worked for a company for

over fifty years, and a three month supply of Insulin went from $120 to

$2500 overnight. I was moved to tears but there was nothing I could

do, he wasn't poor enough to get any assistance. Insulin what the man

needed to live. Now that is the present Medicare plan, and how it works

for those who have worked and do deserve the benefits of their company.

Don't be fooled by scare tactics. No one is going to start kiling off or

forcing old people into some kind of concentration camps, or even

encouraging them to just go on and die. Not in this country anyway, not

as long as we still have a constitution. I guess maybe since I did work for

an insurance company for almost ten years, and since my sister, and

other family members have lived in other Western democratic countries,

then I may have a broader view than other people in this country may

have.

How would you propose that we cover fifty million Americans who do not

have health insurance one of which I currently am, since I left that

insurance company and went back to school. Of course I am a History

Major, and it really surprises me how little things change. As I've said

Roosevelt who was probably one of the best presidents this country has

ever had was a liberal, and he was called "socialist" and "communist" for

introducing, unemployment benefits, social security, the FDIC, The SCLC,

the WPA, YSL (Which put millions of people back to work on infrastructure,

cleaning and maintaining federal and state parks, and capturing the

American spirit artistically, poets, painters, etc) Hoover who was a

conservative republican and in office when The Great Depression hit

thouht that the Great Depression would end on it's own. Does that sound

familiar. I mean you can look this up on Google it is part of our history.

I miss the American spirit that people like Roosevelt, Lincoln, Jefferson,

Truman, Eseinhower, Kennedy, Reagan, Clinton. Bush Sr possessed when

they thought that America was the best damn country in the world and

that we lead the world morally, financially, industirally, educationally,

and even militarily. I don't like all these people who keep putting limits

on what Americans can do. That think its okay for us to be lagging behind

the rest of the West in areas such as Education and health care, and

industry. I want that American spirit back. That is my prayer.

What about Germany?

My sister actually lived in Germany and she loved their health care

system and I am talking about the 90's. She was not in the military

at the time, she was living in a residential area of Germany, and she

had two kids, that the German health care system paid, 100% of the

cost for their birth. Of course that did make them citizens, but she

said she didn't have to pay for prenatal care either. She also said that

the hospitals were clean and healthy, and she got to pck her own

doctor.

It is absolutely ridiculous to even think for a moment that the federal

government would actually tell people they had to die. It is so insanely

stupid that anyone who even gave that any hint of "truth" really is

not that intelligent at all. "We hold these truths to be self evident that

all men are created equal and subject to certain unailanable rights,

among these are the rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."

Life is the very first thing that the Constitution guaruntees it's citizens.

Now I actually worked for the health care system, and insurance company

to be exact when the Medicare bill changed by Bush. Oh let me tell

you it is was absolute hell. Basically simply put, with the present new

Medicare laws, it basically means that all a company has to offer their

retires once they hit the age of 65 is the Medicare plan. I spoke to

literally thousands of people during the two years that I was there who

were in effect loosing their coverage. Their companies dropped them

down to plans that were equal to the new Medicare bills, and since these

were working class people, they were not poor enough to actually

qualify for the low income coverage.

I talked to one man who was 92 years old had worked for a company for

over fifty years, and a three month supply of Insulin went from $120 to

$2500 overnight. I was moved to tears but there was nothing I could

do, he wasn't poor enough to get any assistance. Insulin what the man

needed to live. Now that is the present Medicare plan, and how it works

for those who have worked and do deserve the benefits of their company.

Don't be fooled by scare tactics. No one is going to start kiling off or

forcing old people into some kind of concentration camps, or even

encouraging them to just go on and die. Not in this country anyway, not

as long as we still have a constitution. I guess maybe since I did work for

an insurance company for almost ten years, and since my sister, and

other family members have lived in other Western democratic countries,

then I may have a broader view than other people in this country may

have.

How would you propose that we cover fifty million Americans who do not

have health insurance one of which I currently am, since I left that

insurance company and went back to school. Of course I am a History

Major, and it really surprises me how little things change. As I've said

Roosevelt who was probably one of the best presidents this country has

ever had was a liberal, and he was called "socialist" and "communist" for

introducing, unemployment benefits, social security, the FDIC, The SCLC,

the WPA, YSL (Which put millions of people back to work on infrastructure,

cleaning and maintaining federal and state parks, and capturing the

American spirit artistically, poets, painters, etc) Hoover who was a

conservative republican and in office when The Great Depression hit

thouht that the Great Depression would end on it's own. Does that sound

familiar. I mean you can look this up on Google it is part of our history.

I miss the American spirit that people like Roosevelt, Lincoln, Jefferson,

Truman, Eseinhower, Kennedy, Reagan, Clinton. Bush Sr possessed when

they thought that America was the best damn country in the world and

that we lead the world morally, financially, industirally, educationally,

and even militarily. I don't like all these people who keep putting limits

on what Americans can do. That think its okay for us to be lagging behind

the rest of the West in areas such as Education and health care, and

industry. I want that American spirit back. That is my prayer.

As to those who think that depression does not cause abortion:

There are many lies out there. The worst one is that depression is not a disease, or that it is not treatable (with careful professional treatment). Depression isn't just cured by force of will. In fact, none of the original eight (yes eight) deadly sins (gluttony, fornication, avarice, anger, sloth/mania, despondency/depression, vainglory, and pride) are cured by force of will, but by prayer to God, confession of sins to a soul-friend, and guided work, with faith, to amend one's life. But on to lies...

Women have been lied to, yes. But women are not brainless sponges. We know a lie when we see it. Some women may think that a group of cells (for example a tumor) are not something precious to keep, but women know more than men (who are also responsible) that a fetus is a fetus. When a woman consciously removes a fetus, it is because she is angry, confused, despondent, sometimes full of avarice, pride, vanity, etc. (Plus, of course, she and her partner also practiced fornication, obviously.) According to the early Christians, a person with the physical faults, starting with gluttony, were more likely to go to the next and worse fault, ending in the worst fault of all: pride. But if a woman is experiencing such faults, she will likely need guidance to overcome them. Again, she will need healthcare in the form of mental health treatment first and foremost, just in order to be a good mother, or to recognize her limitations and give the baby to another who would be a good mother. The solution is not to take healthcare away from a woman in this condition, because it is more likely, not less, that a woman who did not plan to have a child would have gotten into that situation through a sin in the first place, and be more susceptable to all the others, and more likely to want to rid herself of a child.

Healthcare is the solution. Yes, prayer is needed too... and that is also the job of the church, to stand by women with help, counseling, and care. Not bullying that turns more women away. Because the bullying will not bring women the care to seek treatment and keep their children.

Right now, with the economic situation so dire, many women find another reason to rid themselves of children. Yes, I'll say it: mortgages are often the worst kind of balooning mortgage when people are poor to start with, and lending practices are often very prejudiced, as studies have shown. If a person is pushed against the wall, either they will destroy their children, themselves, or they will destroy others. My fear is that the banks may cause a lot worse than a recession. I feel that this is on the same subject: people's anger that is untreated can lead to deadly force.

"In the same way, people resent Obama because he's getting the adulation
they want and feel they deserve."

Are you kidding? Do you honestly believe this? People resent him because
they are jealous over the attention he gets??

Absolutely, that's the case -- why else would did they focus their attention
on him and not John McCain during the last presidential campaign? A
lot of these people were willing to badmouth Obama but in contrast had little
good to say about McCain -- which spoke volumes.

Oh, and people "resent" him because they see other people literally looking
to Obama as if he is God... they look to him to fix their lives rather than
trusting a Savior, Jesus Christ. And it's sickening to watch the media and
other people's fawning and swooning over a human being, someone who makes
promise after promise, as if he truly is a messianic figure.

Garbage. Can you say "Ronald Reagan?" It was no different then -- except
that Reagan was a conservative.

Poor people in America are not denied health care. Yes, health care is a "right," but health INSURANCE is not. It's just like car insurance. It's not a "right." You can pay your bills using cash if you don't have insurance. Or make payments. Remember, this is not about health care. It's about health INSURANCE to cover the cost of the health care.

"In the same way, people resent Obama because he's getting the adulation they want and feel they deserve."

Are you kidding? Do you honestly believe this? People resent him because they are jealous over the attention he gets??

I hardly think this is the case.

People resent him because he has indebted us trillions of dollars by passing the "stimulus" bill. People resent him because he has taken over car companies, banks, and soon, health care. People resent him because he has brought government intrusion into people's lives in a way that is unmatched in history. People resent him because he appoints tax cheats to his cabinet, and he creates tons of "czar" positions. People resent him because he pushes these 1000 page bills that will radically change many things... and he pushes and pushes and pushes to get them as quick as he can, rather than having patience and giving people time to read these bills and make informed decisions. People resent him because he manipulates, as he did with his "Yes, We Can" catchphrase. People resent him because they feel as if their voice is not being heard and they feel as if they are becoming enslaved to big government.

Oh, and people "resent" him because they see other people literally looking to Obama as if he is God... they look to him to fix their lives rather than trusting a Savior, Jesus Christ. And it's sickening to watch the media and other people's fawning and swooning over a human being, someone who makes promise after promise, as if he truly is a messianic figure.

But it's not resentment people feel. It's anger, it's fear, it's sadness as the way his radical agendas are leaving a legacy of debt and big govt, it's even depression as people watch their nation morphing into something unrecognizable as their freedoms diminish more and more each day. And it's also disgust.

Also, Obama does not "unify." In fact, his poll numbers are dropping, and many, many Americans are outraged, furious, and enraged at his radical policies. As well, he could care less about the Republican opinions as he and the Democrats push their agendas through, since they are "in control." Yah, some "unity."

Yah, good ol' Obama and his promises.

Oh, and by the way, my entire staff where I work is being laid off this week. Tomorrow is our last day of work. Good thing I seek help from my Savior, and not from Obama.

Abortion should not just be "minimized." You don't just "minimize" how many babies are killed.

It's not a perfect world, though. And it's a sinful world. And I doubt abortion will ever be illegal. And even if it was, women would still have it.

However, for those who understand the greivous act that abortion is... and how it is the destruction of life... there is no "minimizing" of it. Each one of those lives is worth fighting for their right to live.

I did not equate slavery to abortion. Nor did I discuss conservatives or their views.

I equated the inhumanity of slavery to the inhumanity of abortion. I also equated the outrage of people towards slavery to the outrage of people towards abortion.

In other words, the two are different, but BOTH are inhumane because a person is harmed. A person's life is devalued and degraded. And in the same way that slavery should've been an unthinkable and unacceptable crime, so should abortion also be an unthinkable and unacceptable crime.

So what if conservatives in the South wanted "peace at any price," etc. This is not Civil War times. This is the year 2009. You seem to bring up history alot when it comes to your arguments about conservatives and their past "sins," but there are many conservatives in this current day and age who would disagree with those conservatives of the past who justified slavery.

And why you even bring up something from so long ago doesn't in any way diminish the argument that just as slavery was inhumane, cruel, and injust, so is abortion. Conservative's past and/or present actions don't diminish this fact.

I don't believe I ever suggested you belong to any specific group. I have no basis for making any such claim. I did suggest that journalists lean left politically and your animosity towards the right suggest to me that you do to (but for all I know you are a libertarian). However, poll after poll suggests that journalists have overwhelmingly voted with the Democratic presidential candidate for decades. So no contradiction there at all.

Wait a minute -- you said originally that we all read such magazines as the Nation, which isn't necessarily true. I've heard the charges that the majority of journalists vote Democratic, but most people in our field live in heavily-Democratic cities (because that's where the jobs always have been) and as a result are simply exposed to more things. I am a registered Democrat but decided to drop out of partisan politics in the early 1990s because neither side suited me. (Today, of course, that's forbidden.)

As for the stories you brought up:

With the Texas Air National Guard story, two things. For openers, the producer -- who ended up being fired -- later complained that the story actually was broadcast too soon, perhaps a week, because it didn't yet have the goods. This was not an attack on Bush, just a botched story. And do you know where I first heard about that? On ABC News, hardly a bastion of conservatism.

As far as John Edwards, there was no iron-clad evidence at the time that he was having an affair; in fact, some news agencies did snoop around but didn't get anywhere. See, a lot of that depends on getting people on the record and no one would then.

As far as John McCain, I don't even know all the details. But keep in mind that he did leave his first wife for his second, which might have raised suspicions.

The other stories I don't know anything about.

But if you want to talk about political persecution, those don't compare to the right-wing media's hounding of Bill Clinton for the first six years of his presidency, with unproven charges of corruption and affairs that proved so hot that even we in the MSM were distracted trying to find something that didn't even exist. (Indeed, the right-wing media were only trying to raise suspicion, not necessarily prove anything.) Several books have actually been written about that campaign, two of which I own and the author of one of which actually told Hillary about the VRWC. Today, one of the "journalists" involved is now pretty friendly with Clinton.

You say you aren't postmodernist in your point of view but perhaps that's unfortunate because if you were you may be a little more introspective of your own biases. An excellent book highlighting a media bias (which, being a Christian, you may appreciate) is "Blind Spot: When Journalists Don't Get Religion". Before you dismiss this one too, here is what Ari Goldman (Professor at Columbia's School of Journalism said about it: "This is the book I - and my students - have been waiting for."

I grew up with a lot of Christians and only one of them even aspired to go into media (and I wasn't that person), so that may have to do with the kind of people who go into that field. Here's something you might not know: The late Peter Jennings, when he was on ABC News, was forever trying to get stories on religion covered (and eventually succeeded). And, truth be told, I don't think you can remain a staunch conservative (or liberal) while being a journalist because you have to deal in facts. In my case, I'm primarily an entertainment writer, due to my second career as a musician, and in situations like that I almost have to be a part of that community to do it effectively.

Finally, as you defend multiculturalism and other issues on the list may I remind you that I did not say I agreed nor did I say I disagreed with changes I outlined in that list. If you are looking for me to defend Bill Buckley its not going to happen. I think it is a bloody shame that Christians have been so often on the wrong side of the fight for civil rights. The point of the list is to documenting the victories of the Left. The victories of the Right are nil. I think that speaks volumes as to who the aggressor is.

A lot of that has to do with the right's insistence on doctrinal purity and its unwillingness and inability to make its case to the broader society in an understandable and acceptable fashion. Basically, it wants to establish an aristocracy with answers to no one and often uses religion as moral cover, which is why one person made the comment that "if Jerry Falwell's against it, I'm for it." Besides, "culture wars" turn people off; the 1992 Republican National Convention started the slippery slope toward GOP oblivion, with many gays who ordinarily voted Republican (and a lot did) supporting Clinton. On top of that, selling the "culture war" necessarily requires targeting an enemy, which gets tiresome after a while because eventually you have to favor something.

Finally, I am concerned with many, not all, of the directions the Left is taking us. I am especially concerned with the statist impulses of the Left. I am especially troubled by the increasing politicization of American life. There are hard schisms forming in this country which are troubling. I think much of the balkanization of American life is animated by identity politics and the tendency to demonize political opponents. My guess is if you and I sat down for a beer we would disagree on many (most maybe) issues. But to me the most important issues are not the political ones they are the spiritual ones. If we cannot get along because our political differences then we have placed politics before Christ and that is truly a shame.

This is where I must challenge your thesis. That began happening in the early 1960s, when the right began taking over the Republican Party and calibrating its message to win over disparate elements of folks who would normally vote Democratic to create what Richard Nixon referred to as a "silent majority." In fact, in an excellent article published in the New Yorker last year, former Nixon aide Pat Buchanan actually laid out details on just how the party went about it, and Charles Colson a quarter-century ago also gave details on that campaign in the book "Loving God." So you just can't blame the left, in large part because it was largely nameless and faceless -- which is just how the right wanted it.

You still miss the point completely -- and deliberately, in my view.

For openers, I am personally not involved in any of those "left-wing"
organizations that you rattled off, neither to my knowledge are any of my
colleagues; yet you also said from the outset that that we journalists are
locked into that mindset. With that statement you immediately contradicted
yourself and undercut your own argument that all the right wants is
"fairness." Indeed, since the 1970s it's been standard conservative parlance
to "blame the media" for not giving space to conservative views; in response,
most newspapers actually did (if for no other reason than to gain new
readers). But even people in the business will tell you today that such
opinions often don't stand up to journalistic scrutiny when it comes right
down to it; that's why all conservative print media are opinion journals (e.g.
National Review, Weekly Standard and Commentary); it has nothing to do with
the squelching of such viewpoints. What you don't seem to understand is that
much conservative opinion, simply because it doesn't square with the facts on
the ground, is simply invalid. At that, I don't subscribe to
post-modernism in that all views are valid regardless of where they come from
and no matter how they're justified.

As for my "lack of evidence" to support my positions, it would be virtually
useless to do so in this case without referring to personal or occupational
experience because you would likely dismiss my evidence as well. That said,
it's precisely because I've been personally involved that I know what I'm
talking about. And frankly, it offends me that you prejudge my motives just
because I don't follow your line, especially since, as I said previously, that
I have investigated conservative views and found them wanting. And in
fact, there is a long-standing disinformation campaign from the right that
people began to wake up to about 10 years ago; this is foundational truth not
subject to interpretation. (Whether there is a similar "propaganda machine"
from the left is immaterial and in fact there isn't; conservatives, since
being exposed, have been desperate to prove to the contrary.)

I still don't subscribe to the idea that the "left" began the "culture war."
National Review, for example, predated the Montgomery bus boycott and
eventually came out against the civil-rights movement. And as I was saying,
you have to have two to have a war and the "left" had no specific intention of
taking over (that would have happened in the 1920s were that the case);
rather, it was a natural turn of events from the largely comfortable 1950s,
and everything came under examination -- as things to. This, however, does
not constitute a culture war.

As for your list, classic libertarians would support about half of the items
on them; many of the rest actually represent a reaction to the right's desire
for cultural authority. Abortion, for example, was hijacked by the "religious
right" in the late 1970s as moral cover for its quasi-racist agenda (as
mentioned on a blog entry on this very site). Same-gender marriage is also
such because the right has not given a specific reason why two people "in
love" cannot be married. (For the record, I don't support it; however, it
highlights the way marriage, not just sexuality, has been perverted in Western
culture.) As for multi-culturalism, be advised that the early church was
multi-cultural and multi-racial, and as someone who has been functionally
multi-cultural from the age of 5, I don't see why that's such a threat. As
for the "expansion of government," that has to do with the failure to "act
justly, love mercy and walk humbly with God," as expressed in Micah 6:8; that
was the justification National Review gave for opposing the civil-rights
movement (and Bill Buckley later repented).

Bottom line, you have not in any way made your case, at least with me.

What about Germany?

My sister actually lived in Germany and she loved their health care

system and I am talking about the 90's. She was not in the military

at the time, she was living in a residential area of Germany, and she

had two kids, that the German health care system paid, 100% of the

cost for their birth. Of course that did make them citizens, but she

said she didn't have to pay for prenatal care either. She also said that

the hospitals were clean and healthy, and she got to pck her own

doctor.

It is absolutely ridiculous to even think for a moment that the federal

government would actually tell people they had to die. It is so insanely

stupid that anyone who even gave that any hint of "truth" really is

not that intelligent at all. "We hold these truths to be self evident that

all men are created equal and subject to certain unailanable rights,

among these are the rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."

Life is the very first thing that the Constitution guaruntees it's citizens.

Now I actually worked for the health care system, and insurance company

to be exact when the Medicare bill changed by Bush. Oh let me tell

you it is was absolute hell. Basically simply put, with the present new

Medicare laws, it basically means that all a company has to offer their

retires once they hit the age of 65 is the Medicare plan. I spoke to

literally thousands of people during the two years that I was there who

were in effect loosing their coverage. Their companies dropped them

down to plans that were equal to the new Medicare bills, and since these

were working class people, they were not poor enough to actually

qualify for the low income coverage.

I talked to one man who was 92 years old had worked for a company for

over fifty years, and a three month supply of Insulin went from $120 to

$2500 overnight. I was moved to tears but there was nothing I could

do, he wasn't poor enough to get any assistance. Insulin what the man

needed to live. Now that is the present Medicare plan, and how it works

for those who have worked and do deserve the benefits of their company.

Don't be fooled by scare tactics. No one is going to start kiling off or

forcing old people into some kind of concentration camps, or even

encouraging them to just go on and die. Not in this country anyway, not

as long as we still have a constitution. I guess maybe since I did work for

an insurance company for almost ten years, and since my sister, and

other family members have lived in other Western democratic countries,

then I may have a broader view than other people in this country may

have.

How would you propose that we cover fifty million Americans who do not

have health insurance one of which I currently am, since I left that

insurance company and went back to school. Of course I am a History

Major, and it really surprises me how little things change. As I've said

Roosevelt who was probably one of the best presidents this country has

ever had was a liberal, and he was called "socialist" and "communist" for

introducing, unemployment benefits, social security, the FDIC, The SCLC,

the WPA, YSL (Which put millions of people back to work on infrastructure,

cleaning and maintaining federal and state parks, and capturing the

American spirit artistically, poets, painters, etc) Hoover who was a

conservative republican and in office when The Great Depression hit

thouht that the Great Depression would end on it's own. Does that sound

familiar. I mean you can look this up on Google it is part of our history.

I miss the American spirit that people like Roosevelt, Lincoln, Jefferson,

Truman, Eseinhower, Kennedy, Reagan, Clinton. Bush Sr possessed when

they thought that America was the best damn country in the world and

that we lead the world morally, financially, industirally, educationally,

and even militarily. I don't like all these people who keep putting limits

on what Americans can do. That think its okay for us to be lagging behind

the rest of the West in areas such as Education and health care, and

industry. I want that American spirit back. That is my prayer.

Because you can't answer the question, you refocus to your desired talking points. In the years you have spent commenting here, you have artfully neglected to let anyone know how you believe government should operate.

What do YOU want to have happen? How do YOU want government to operate?