If there be a God (and I am among those who say there is), He would be a good and kindly God. So, what of the commandment to observe the Sabbath?
I thought along these lines as I and my family sat at the table, eating dinner, talking of various things. Would God be upset? Would He want us to talk about Him this day?
I think of ourselves. And, of how a good person would react if he or she were neglected. Would they demand the attention? Would they demand honor? No, a good person doesn't demand honor.
Is God so different?
I believe God wishes us to observe the Sabbath, and is gratified when we do so. But, I don't believe He throws much of a fit if we don't.
I believe we can have friendships with God. I believe we can show Him we love Him. Giving Him time on the Sabbath increases our friendship, and shows Him our love.
I believe that just as it is with relations here on earth, where one person shows appreciation for another, so it is with our relations with God. If we show Him love and if we observe the Sabbath, He appreciates it and is grateful.
If we would have a friendship with our God, then, we should enjoy the Sabbath, and enjoy giving it to Him.
Sunday, May 14, 2017
Saturday, May 13, 2017
If Trump is Nervous, Perhaps there is Reason
Thankfully, the ship has sailed, and there will be no calling it back.
I think of what acting FBI Director Andrew McCabe's has said. An Associated Press story says he characterized the investigation into Russian interference in our election as "highly significant." He said James Comey's firing will not hinder the investigation and no interference from the White House will be tolerated.
The investigation will go on, regardless what Trump might want, or who he might fire.
Bless you all, who say the investigation is unnecessary, or that it is a witch hunt, or that it will turn up nothing. Your opinions are fine.
Mine simply differs. I wonder at a president so concerned about the issue that he would fire the FBI director. I wonder that he would be so concerned that he would seek a pledge of loyalty from the FBI director, implying that he must pledge to find nothing to implicate him. FBI directors are appointed to 10-year terms. Comey was but four years into his. Only once before has an FBI director been fired.
So, this firing is significant.
You can grapple for reasons why Trump fired Comey. If we are conjecturing, then the thought that he grew nervous is one. If he had nothing to fear, nothing to hide, then why was he even asking Comey to take a pledge of "loyalty"?
Acting FBI Director McCabe said the investigation is "highly significant." That doesn't sound like he expects it will turn up little or nothing. It doesn't necessarily mean it will turn up something on Trump, but it indicates we can expect something significant. McCabe also said they will not keep Trump abreast of what is being found. That indicates that they might be looking into a Trump connection. It doesn't mean they will find such a connection, but it certainly suggests they are going to search to see if there is one.
If Trump is nervous, perhaps there is reason for his nervousness.
I think of what acting FBI Director Andrew McCabe's has said. An Associated Press story says he characterized the investigation into Russian interference in our election as "highly significant." He said James Comey's firing will not hinder the investigation and no interference from the White House will be tolerated.
The investigation will go on, regardless what Trump might want, or who he might fire.
Bless you all, who say the investigation is unnecessary, or that it is a witch hunt, or that it will turn up nothing. Your opinions are fine.
Mine simply differs. I wonder at a president so concerned about the issue that he would fire the FBI director. I wonder that he would be so concerned that he would seek a pledge of loyalty from the FBI director, implying that he must pledge to find nothing to implicate him. FBI directors are appointed to 10-year terms. Comey was but four years into his. Only once before has an FBI director been fired.
So, this firing is significant.
You can grapple for reasons why Trump fired Comey. If we are conjecturing, then the thought that he grew nervous is one. If he had nothing to fear, nothing to hide, then why was he even asking Comey to take a pledge of "loyalty"?
Acting FBI Director McCabe said the investigation is "highly significant." That doesn't sound like he expects it will turn up little or nothing. It doesn't necessarily mean it will turn up something on Trump, but it indicates we can expect something significant. McCabe also said they will not keep Trump abreast of what is being found. That indicates that they might be looking into a Trump connection. It doesn't mean they will find such a connection, but it certainly suggests they are going to search to see if there is one.
If Trump is nervous, perhaps there is reason for his nervousness.
Friday, May 12, 2017
Turn the Individual Mandate on its Head
I would turn the individual mandate on its head. Given a chance to reform out health system, rather than requiring everyone to buy insurance, I would require health providers to sell to everyone.
My thoughts on this were reinforced a couple days ago, as I thought on how it is a principle of economics that those marketing a product, are sometimes influenced by those buyers who will pay the most -- and that drives prices up.
If they could get $20 from the rich for a pack of bubblegum, they'd do it. But, the rich don't want bubblegum that bad, so bubblegum doesn't end up costing $20.
Health care might be another matter. The rich want health. And, they will pay what they have to get it. If it costs $60,000 for a surgery, they'll pay it. And, that drives the price of the product up.
Now, truth be told, even the rich don't pay out of their own pockets for health care. They buy insurance, like the rest of us. So, you might suggest my theory that the rich drive up the cost of health care is false.
Insurance, you might argue, actually does the opposite. By removing the rich from directly paying for health care, it reduces costs. If they were paying out of their own pockets, they would pay whatever it took. But, they are not paying out of their own pocket. They buy insurance. The plans they buy can differ -- they might opt for something called concierge medicine, and set up something called S-corps and LLCs and they might opt for high deductibles, but they buy insurance.
That they buy insurance does have some buffering effect from driving costs up by being willing to pay whatever it takes. But, consider this: insurance companies are as rich as the rich people who we are talking about. They might not be as willing as the rich individuals to pay whatever it takes, but they do have the money to do so.
And, that does drive prices up.
The poor become the rich when you have insurance. When they need a $60,000 surgery, the insurance company comes up with the money. The poor person could never do that on his own.
So, it might seem that keeping insurance is a way of keeping the poor covered, and therefore a good thing. And, perhaps so. But, we should consider that there might be another way of going about it. If the insurance companies are rich and the fact that they are rich drives prices up, should we take insurance out of the picture?
I said I would turn the individual mandate on its head, but I did not say that meant insurance companies would be required to sell to everyone. No, I said health care providers would be required to sell their products to everyone.
There's a difference between the hospital being required to take what the insurance company can pay and being required to take what a poor person can pay. A big difference. What if we had the mandate that hospitals must sell, but we booted insurance out of the equation?
It is a solution I toy around with. I think I like it. And, will go to bed thinking about it.
My thoughts on this were reinforced a couple days ago, as I thought on how it is a principle of economics that those marketing a product, are sometimes influenced by those buyers who will pay the most -- and that drives prices up.
If they could get $20 from the rich for a pack of bubblegum, they'd do it. But, the rich don't want bubblegum that bad, so bubblegum doesn't end up costing $20.
Health care might be another matter. The rich want health. And, they will pay what they have to get it. If it costs $60,000 for a surgery, they'll pay it. And, that drives the price of the product up.
Now, truth be told, even the rich don't pay out of their own pockets for health care. They buy insurance, like the rest of us. So, you might suggest my theory that the rich drive up the cost of health care is false.
Insurance, you might argue, actually does the opposite. By removing the rich from directly paying for health care, it reduces costs. If they were paying out of their own pockets, they would pay whatever it took. But, they are not paying out of their own pocket. They buy insurance. The plans they buy can differ -- they might opt for something called concierge medicine, and set up something called S-corps and LLCs and they might opt for high deductibles, but they buy insurance.
That they buy insurance does have some buffering effect from driving costs up by being willing to pay whatever it takes. But, consider this: insurance companies are as rich as the rich people who we are talking about. They might not be as willing as the rich individuals to pay whatever it takes, but they do have the money to do so.
And, that does drive prices up.
The poor become the rich when you have insurance. When they need a $60,000 surgery, the insurance company comes up with the money. The poor person could never do that on his own.
So, it might seem that keeping insurance is a way of keeping the poor covered, and therefore a good thing. And, perhaps so. But, we should consider that there might be another way of going about it. If the insurance companies are rich and the fact that they are rich drives prices up, should we take insurance out of the picture?
I said I would turn the individual mandate on its head, but I did not say that meant insurance companies would be required to sell to everyone. No, I said health care providers would be required to sell their products to everyone.
There's a difference between the hospital being required to take what the insurance company can pay and being required to take what a poor person can pay. A big difference. What if we had the mandate that hospitals must sell, but we booted insurance out of the equation?
It is a solution I toy around with. I think I like it. And, will go to bed thinking about it.
Thursday, May 11, 2017
The Day of the Working Class Might be Closing out
One wonders if we sit on the precipice of the greatest economic threat ever. Robots swallow up all our factory line jobs. Drones take over all our transportation jobs. Automated checkers replace every check-out clerk.
There is nary a manual labor job that a robot cannot do.
So, what becomes of us? Do the rich -- all those who own companies -- remain, but the working class run out of work? We speak much of the gap between the rich and the poor. This could exacerbate that problem.
We soon could live in a world where you either own a company, or you are unemployed. That might be a little bit of a generalization, but to a large extent, it could happen.
What kind of jobs might will remain? Perhaps, those that rely on human interaction. Guides, hosts, trainers, and counselors stand a chance of surviving. Who knows, as our economy shifts, we might see job creation in those fields just to keep people employed. Instead of going through national parks much on your own, the day might come when a guide accompanies the whole way through the park.
But, shifting workers to human-touch type of jobs is only part of the answer. We will also need to shift many workers from being just that -- employees -- to being owners. The day of the working class may be coming to an end, and the age of everyone owning their own business at our doorstep.
There is nary a manual labor job that a robot cannot do.
So, what becomes of us? Do the rich -- all those who own companies -- remain, but the working class run out of work? We speak much of the gap between the rich and the poor. This could exacerbate that problem.
We soon could live in a world where you either own a company, or you are unemployed. That might be a little bit of a generalization, but to a large extent, it could happen.
What kind of jobs might will remain? Perhaps, those that rely on human interaction. Guides, hosts, trainers, and counselors stand a chance of surviving. Who knows, as our economy shifts, we might see job creation in those fields just to keep people employed. Instead of going through national parks much on your own, the day might come when a guide accompanies the whole way through the park.
But, shifting workers to human-touch type of jobs is only part of the answer. We will also need to shift many workers from being just that -- employees -- to being owners. The day of the working class may be coming to an end, and the age of everyone owning their own business at our doorstep.
Wednesday, May 10, 2017
This would be a Sanctuary City like no other
Sanctuary city? We don't have one of this kind, a city created -- built from the ground up -- just for those who come to the U.S. A city fostering them as the seek to become legal, helping them become legal.
Well, yes, I can see such a city would be shut down fast. But, I still think it a wonderful idea, if only Donald Trump and the government would let it stand.
You don't want them stealing your jobs? Put them in their own city. If you must, restrict them from working outside the immigrant city. You don't want them using your schools? Let them have their own, right there in Sanctuary City.
For that would be the name of it.
You don't want them to use your hospitals? Let them have their own.
We have -- what -- 10 million undocumented immigrants? There's enough of them they could have a sprawling city. Is there some place in New Mexico or Arizona or Texas we could put them -- some place large enough for a city of 10 million?
So, instead of deporting them, send them to Sanctuary City.
I don't know if this idea would work. I'd like it to. But, would it be but a slum city? Would they not be able to fashion a thriving community for themselves? Perhaps, like the name of the municipality suggests, we would have to nurse them along, building stores and manufacturing sites and businesses for them to come work at, and to come and own and operate.
A sanctuary city might require some sanctuary.
While I wonder if it would work, I like the idea. You could take virtually every negative aimed at undocumented workers and erase them. Crime? That would be pretty much their own problem. If they were stealing or robbing or raping, it would more likely be among their own. And, I already pointed out they would no longer be taking jobs from us, no longer using our schools, and no longer using our hospitals.
Social programs? Government care? Give them their own network. And, instead of it relying on Uncle Sam, let charities pay for their "Medicaid" and "Food Stamps."
If we take away all the reasons you don't like them, will you let them stay? Give them their own city, and let them stay.
Well, yes, I can see such a city would be shut down fast. But, I still think it a wonderful idea, if only Donald Trump and the government would let it stand.
You don't want them stealing your jobs? Put them in their own city. If you must, restrict them from working outside the immigrant city. You don't want them using your schools? Let them have their own, right there in Sanctuary City.
For that would be the name of it.
You don't want them to use your hospitals? Let them have their own.
We have -- what -- 10 million undocumented immigrants? There's enough of them they could have a sprawling city. Is there some place in New Mexico or Arizona or Texas we could put them -- some place large enough for a city of 10 million?
So, instead of deporting them, send them to Sanctuary City.
I don't know if this idea would work. I'd like it to. But, would it be but a slum city? Would they not be able to fashion a thriving community for themselves? Perhaps, like the name of the municipality suggests, we would have to nurse them along, building stores and manufacturing sites and businesses for them to come work at, and to come and own and operate.
A sanctuary city might require some sanctuary.
While I wonder if it would work, I like the idea. You could take virtually every negative aimed at undocumented workers and erase them. Crime? That would be pretty much their own problem. If they were stealing or robbing or raping, it would more likely be among their own. And, I already pointed out they would no longer be taking jobs from us, no longer using our schools, and no longer using our hospitals.
Social programs? Government care? Give them their own network. And, instead of it relying on Uncle Sam, let charities pay for their "Medicaid" and "Food Stamps."
If we take away all the reasons you don't like them, will you let them stay? Give them their own city, and let them stay.
Tuesday, May 9, 2017
Poor Man Out
As Republicans and the Trump Administration seek to inject more competition, more free-market policies into health care, we should open our eyes to one of the disadvantages.
Aye, make no mistake, to date, my thought is that we need to turn to competition and free-market values if we are to lower health-care costs. But, a day or two ago, I realized there is a drawback that we will need to overcome:
The tendency of the free-market to preclude some from affording health care.
When the marketer has differing economic levels to market to -- ranging from rich to poor -- there will be the tendency to target the higher-paying customers.
At the expense of the poor.
So, you set your price in accordance to how you believe you can make the most money. If you can only get $1.95 from the poor and you can get $195 from the rich, obviously you set your price to garner your business from the rich.
Poor man out.
So, tonight as I go to bed, perhaps I will give thought to what might can be done to include the poor, for surely it is imperative that the poor are provided health care.
Aye, make no mistake, to date, my thought is that we need to turn to competition and free-market values if we are to lower health-care costs. But, a day or two ago, I realized there is a drawback that we will need to overcome:
The tendency of the free-market to preclude some from affording health care.
When the marketer has differing economic levels to market to -- ranging from rich to poor -- there will be the tendency to target the higher-paying customers.
At the expense of the poor.
So, you set your price in accordance to how you believe you can make the most money. If you can only get $1.95 from the poor and you can get $195 from the rich, obviously you set your price to garner your business from the rich.
Poor man out.
So, tonight as I go to bed, perhaps I will give thought to what might can be done to include the poor, for surely it is imperative that the poor are provided health care.
Sunday, May 7, 2017
Testimony Comes from Believing, not from Knowledge
A testimony comes from believing. It is not the product of knowledge.
I often consider mine will be thought of as a weak testimony if I say I believe instead of saying I know the church is true. But, perhaps, as I said, testimony comes from believing, not from knowledge.
I think on John 16:7, and wonder if I understand it better than I ever have. "It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you."
As long as Christ was there, their testimonies were testimonies of sureness, of knowledge. But, without him, they had to live by faith, their belief had to be enough. I do not know, and know I can be wrong in how I understand the scriptures, but I wonder if what I have just said is so.
If a person knows something, he has no cause to belief, no cause for faith, for he knows it. I don't have time to look it up, but there is a scripture to that effect.
I often consider mine will be thought of as a weak testimony if I say I believe instead of saying I know the church is true. But, perhaps, as I said, testimony comes from believing, not from knowledge.
I think on John 16:7, and wonder if I understand it better than I ever have. "It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you."
As long as Christ was there, their testimonies were testimonies of sureness, of knowledge. But, without him, they had to live by faith, their belief had to be enough. I do not know, and know I can be wrong in how I understand the scriptures, but I wonder if what I have just said is so.
If a person knows something, he has no cause to belief, no cause for faith, for he knows it. I don't have time to look it up, but there is a scripture to that effect.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)