There are a lot of charities in this world, and I think we need one more: charity insurance.
Yes, existing charities do help the poor with medical bills, though perhaps not enough. But, is their help all after-the-fact? I am not aware of -- have never heard of -- charities offering discount insurance to the poor.
And, hospitals currently work with low-income patients, after-the-fact, to reduce their bills. But, there is no insurance in place, upfront, that I know of. The hospitals should be part of this, if we do create charity insurance. They should offer discount services to those on this new insurance.
Under what I am suggesting, the poor would be allowed to make pay premiums of, oh, say, $30 a month, and be provided with full medical benefits. The government would not make up the difference. In fact, the government making up the difference is what I'm seeking to avoid.
Charity would make up part of the difference, and the hospitals, themselves would make up the rest. The poor would pay a share, but it would be an affordable share.
http://www.ehow.com/list_6385652_charities-hospital-bills.html
Tuesday, November 12, 2013
Monday, November 11, 2013
Government Dole? The New Americans Had an Answer
I should tell you about the New Americans, for you might read it, and wish to be one of them. The Americans were a good people to begin with, but now, they took it up a notch.
They lived in a day of a ballooning national debt, and a good share of that was due to the great number of social programs. Now, I ask you, what good American would ever want to take anything away from the needy, the homeless, the less fortunate?
Certainly not a good American.
But, let me tell you what the New Americans did. They rose up in a rebellion, of sorts. Oh, don't take it like that. No, I do not at all mean they got out their arms and went to war with their own country. Now, there were a number of folks around that would have done just that.
But, not the New Americans.
No, they went about their rebelling just a little bit differently. They looked all these social programs and wondered if maybe the best way to get rid of them was to offer their own programs, alternatives, if you will. So, these New Americans set about doing what somehow they hadn't quite thought of doing right up till then.
Disabled? The New Americans were there for them, offering them jobs and money and food.
Out of work? No fear. The New Americans would find them a new job, even if it meant creating it in order to get them one.
Facing a massive medical bill with no insurance? Step over here. This was one of the most expensive and difficult endeavours the New Americans faced. At first, they scrambled to come up with enough money to pay all these bills outright. Then, they finally started persuading health-care providers to offer an affordable insurance, discounted down to where the poor could pay for it. The thought was, these folks have been coming into our emergency care centers, and we've had to treat them, anyway, and often without any reimbursement. Why not have them paying at least a little in the way of premiums?
Now, reader, I know your are saying, "This won't work! This won't work.!This won't work! Why would anyone take one of these jobs the New Americans were offering when the government was sitting there perfectly willing to hand out money for nothing?"
As for health care, that might be interesting to see how it would work out, what with Obamacare requiring everyone to buy insurance. Would the New Americans' charity insurance undercut the forced insurance? Probably not, but it might be interesting to see.
Now, reader, you go to sleep tonight knowing that maybe you are right. Maybe this wouldn't work. But, I'm thinking there are a great number of people who do want to work for what they get. I'm thinking there are a great number who would rather have private charity helping them than government. I'm thinking a fair share could be siphoned off from government programs. And, those who remained on government assistance? Well, perhaps their conscience would be pricked. They certainly do not have has much cause to feel guilty of a free ride if there is no alternative. But, when there is an alternative, some of them, surely, will have their consciences pricked.
No, I'm not saying guilt for getting help when they need help. There need be no guilt for that. But, there might should be guilt for getting help for nothing when they can get help in exchange for working.
So, step up, my fellow Americans, my New Americans, and make this happen. You talk of people sitting on their duffs? Well, quit sitting on your own duffs. Get up and do something to bring an end to all the government dole you complain about.
They lived in a day of a ballooning national debt, and a good share of that was due to the great number of social programs. Now, I ask you, what good American would ever want to take anything away from the needy, the homeless, the less fortunate?
Certainly not a good American.
But, let me tell you what the New Americans did. They rose up in a rebellion, of sorts. Oh, don't take it like that. No, I do not at all mean they got out their arms and went to war with their own country. Now, there were a number of folks around that would have done just that.
But, not the New Americans.
No, they went about their rebelling just a little bit differently. They looked all these social programs and wondered if maybe the best way to get rid of them was to offer their own programs, alternatives, if you will. So, these New Americans set about doing what somehow they hadn't quite thought of doing right up till then.
Disabled? The New Americans were there for them, offering them jobs and money and food.
Out of work? No fear. The New Americans would find them a new job, even if it meant creating it in order to get them one.
Facing a massive medical bill with no insurance? Step over here. This was one of the most expensive and difficult endeavours the New Americans faced. At first, they scrambled to come up with enough money to pay all these bills outright. Then, they finally started persuading health-care providers to offer an affordable insurance, discounted down to where the poor could pay for it. The thought was, these folks have been coming into our emergency care centers, and we've had to treat them, anyway, and often without any reimbursement. Why not have them paying at least a little in the way of premiums?
Now, reader, I know your are saying, "This won't work! This won't work.!This won't work! Why would anyone take one of these jobs the New Americans were offering when the government was sitting there perfectly willing to hand out money for nothing?"
As for health care, that might be interesting to see how it would work out, what with Obamacare requiring everyone to buy insurance. Would the New Americans' charity insurance undercut the forced insurance? Probably not, but it might be interesting to see.
Now, reader, you go to sleep tonight knowing that maybe you are right. Maybe this wouldn't work. But, I'm thinking there are a great number of people who do want to work for what they get. I'm thinking there are a great number who would rather have private charity helping them than government. I'm thinking a fair share could be siphoned off from government programs. And, those who remained on government assistance? Well, perhaps their conscience would be pricked. They certainly do not have has much cause to feel guilty of a free ride if there is no alternative. But, when there is an alternative, some of them, surely, will have their consciences pricked.
No, I'm not saying guilt for getting help when they need help. There need be no guilt for that. But, there might should be guilt for getting help for nothing when they can get help in exchange for working.
So, step up, my fellow Americans, my New Americans, and make this happen. You talk of people sitting on their duffs? Well, quit sitting on your own duffs. Get up and do something to bring an end to all the government dole you complain about.
Sunday, November 10, 2013
In Missionary Doing Missionary Work, Use Love as the Lead
In the church I am part of, missionary work is desired. This Sunday (that would be today), as the topic was discussed, I had some thoughts, like this one:
If you don't do missionary work, but just do love, the missionary work will get done.
It depends on how you do love, of course, how you go about doing love. And, it might be an incorrect assumption, anyway. But I'm thinking love will work. Love, alone, can bring people into the church. We are taught to seek out those who will receive the gospel. My thought is: If you seek out someone to love, you are finding someone to teach. If you visit them, inquire about their needs, talk to them, and display an honest interest in them -- if you simply befriend them -- the chances increase they will be receptive to your giving them guidance. If they are inactive, and you have presented yourself as a member of the church, it is possible they will return to activity without even being asked. If they are not yet members, it might take an invitation, most likely. Still, they will be much more likely to accept that invitation if they know you care about them. What is the old maxium? I don't care how much you know until I know how much you care.
As I thought about love and how it can do the missionary work for you, I pictured a person with his fists out, boxing pose, and saying, "Which hand will you lead with, your right or your left? What will be your knockout punch?"
At that point, the person lets down his fists, indicating neither a strong right nor a left is needed, and no knock-out punch. As he drops his fists, he says, "Lead with love. You are not there to conquer another soul, you are there to win him."
If you don't do missionary work, but just do love, the missionary work will get done.
It depends on how you do love, of course, how you go about doing love. And, it might be an incorrect assumption, anyway. But I'm thinking love will work. Love, alone, can bring people into the church. We are taught to seek out those who will receive the gospel. My thought is: If you seek out someone to love, you are finding someone to teach. If you visit them, inquire about their needs, talk to them, and display an honest interest in them -- if you simply befriend them -- the chances increase they will be receptive to your giving them guidance. If they are inactive, and you have presented yourself as a member of the church, it is possible they will return to activity without even being asked. If they are not yet members, it might take an invitation, most likely. Still, they will be much more likely to accept that invitation if they know you care about them. What is the old maxium? I don't care how much you know until I know how much you care.
As I thought about love and how it can do the missionary work for you, I pictured a person with his fists out, boxing pose, and saying, "Which hand will you lead with, your right or your left? What will be your knockout punch?"
At that point, the person lets down his fists, indicating neither a strong right nor a left is needed, and no knock-out punch. As he drops his fists, he says, "Lead with love. You are not there to conquer another soul, you are there to win him."
Saturday, November 9, 2013
Is There a Right to Choose Your Own Personal Environment?
Those who respect other people's opinions, those who extend to them the right to live lifestyles different than their own should also have the right not have those lifestyles integrated into their own.
I'm speaking about those of same-sex attraction. I'm talking about the bill just passed by the Senate and other bills that might come forth now that the nation's favor is upon these people.
Is this a freedom: the right to establish your personal environment? It isn't in the Bill of Rights, obviously, and I have never heard it mentioned as a basic human right, but should it be? I speak not of when you are in public, but when you are in your own home, or in an entity you own. Should you, then, not have the right to choose what will be in that environment? I believe it is, indeed, your right. This is, in fact, a rule we are already living by. In my home, I can ask those who come to follow certain rules of conduct and if they choose not to, I can ask them to leave.
As a homeowner, I have the right to say who comes in, and setting the rules of conduct goes with that.
If I own a business, I, likewise, have the right to hire and fire if the employees do not follow the code of conduct given them.
So, then, what of that bill before Congress, the one that would require companies to hire regardless of sexual orientation, the bill known as the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA)? The Senate has passed it, but the House has not.
I suggest it imposes on our freedoms. I suggest that laws should not be framed infringing on the right to live as we choose in our homes and the right to choose the environment as we will in the companies of our own.
This is a different matter than discrimination based on race or nationality. I see no reason not to want to live or work with someone based simply on the color of their skin. But, what each of us deems as appropriate behavior differs. Some see no harm in using certain words. But, if an employer doesn't want to be subject to language he or she finds as offensive, the employee can be warned, and then fired if it continues.
If we each have the right to choose our own conduct, we should have the right to preserve that code of conduct in what we might refer to as our personal space. In our homes and our businesses, we should be allowed to set rules of conduct.
Now, here's the trick: When you set rules of conduct, they are for how you are to conduct yourself at work, not away from the workplace. So, it is valid to argue that what employees do in their personal lives is nobody's business, and certainly not the business of their employers. This argument suggests that they can conduct themselves the same as every other employee while at work. I consider this, and consider that if the law is crafted to say as long as they do not bring the conduct into the workplace, then perhaps the law will be just. This does not mean they have to stay in the closet, so to speak. They can announce who they are without practicing or advocating it in the workplace. Such a law would both allow the employer to set the conduct, and the gay person to be gay.
If ever legislation is to be framed on living arrangements, I see a different distinction. If the home to be rented is to be the domicile solely of the gay person and those he or she brings with them, I can see the law as being just. But, if the domicile is to be shared by others who will come in separately, then the right of rejecting based on sexual orientation exists, for just as a male might not want to live with females, or vice versa, so he or she might not want to live with someone of different sexual orientation.
Well, these are thoughts I have at this time. I don't know if they will change with more thinking. But they are my thoughts at the moment.
I'm speaking about those of same-sex attraction. I'm talking about the bill just passed by the Senate and other bills that might come forth now that the nation's favor is upon these people.
Is this a freedom: the right to establish your personal environment? It isn't in the Bill of Rights, obviously, and I have never heard it mentioned as a basic human right, but should it be? I speak not of when you are in public, but when you are in your own home, or in an entity you own. Should you, then, not have the right to choose what will be in that environment? I believe it is, indeed, your right. This is, in fact, a rule we are already living by. In my home, I can ask those who come to follow certain rules of conduct and if they choose not to, I can ask them to leave.
As a homeowner, I have the right to say who comes in, and setting the rules of conduct goes with that.
If I own a business, I, likewise, have the right to hire and fire if the employees do not follow the code of conduct given them.
So, then, what of that bill before Congress, the one that would require companies to hire regardless of sexual orientation, the bill known as the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA)? The Senate has passed it, but the House has not.
I suggest it imposes on our freedoms. I suggest that laws should not be framed infringing on the right to live as we choose in our homes and the right to choose the environment as we will in the companies of our own.
This is a different matter than discrimination based on race or nationality. I see no reason not to want to live or work with someone based simply on the color of their skin. But, what each of us deems as appropriate behavior differs. Some see no harm in using certain words. But, if an employer doesn't want to be subject to language he or she finds as offensive, the employee can be warned, and then fired if it continues.
If we each have the right to choose our own conduct, we should have the right to preserve that code of conduct in what we might refer to as our personal space. In our homes and our businesses, we should be allowed to set rules of conduct.
Now, here's the trick: When you set rules of conduct, they are for how you are to conduct yourself at work, not away from the workplace. So, it is valid to argue that what employees do in their personal lives is nobody's business, and certainly not the business of their employers. This argument suggests that they can conduct themselves the same as every other employee while at work. I consider this, and consider that if the law is crafted to say as long as they do not bring the conduct into the workplace, then perhaps the law will be just. This does not mean they have to stay in the closet, so to speak. They can announce who they are without practicing or advocating it in the workplace. Such a law would both allow the employer to set the conduct, and the gay person to be gay.
If ever legislation is to be framed on living arrangements, I see a different distinction. If the home to be rented is to be the domicile solely of the gay person and those he or she brings with them, I can see the law as being just. But, if the domicile is to be shared by others who will come in separately, then the right of rejecting based on sexual orientation exists, for just as a male might not want to live with females, or vice versa, so he or she might not want to live with someone of different sexual orientation.
Well, these are thoughts I have at this time. I don't know if they will change with more thinking. But they are my thoughts at the moment.
Friday, November 8, 2013
.jpg)
Thursday, November 7, 2013
Thinking While Writing, I'm Against ENDA
Before I'd even heard of Harry Reid's comments, the church responded to them.
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints issued a statement repeating its position on same-sex marriage. The position hasn't changed. The church remains (One) in support of traditional marriage and (Two) in favor of treating those with same-sex attraction with kindness and understanding.
So, what of the bill just passed by the Senate, the Employment Non-Discrimination Act? The church said it has not taken a position on it.
Me? I have some feelings in favor of the bill, but have not given it enough attention to come to an opinion. I do wonder if we should consider, though, that, yes, there might be some jobs in which employers should not be required by law to hire those of same-sex orientation. From what I know of the bill, wouldn't churches, Boy Scouts, and youth programs all alike be required to hire those of same sex? This thought prompts me to consider that I am against the bill. There are organizations that value traditional marriage over non-traditional marriage. While they are respectful of those of same-sex attraction, it is not a way of life they ascribe to, and they should have the right to have their values in their workplace.
You can respect another person's opinion, You can understand they do not believe as you do. They value same-sex marriage and same-sex lifestyles. Let them. But this does not mean if your organization's very existence is based on the values that include traditional marriage that you should be forced to have non-traditional marriage in your own worksite.
Let each side have the environment of their choice. That is only fair.
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865590140/LDS-Church-responds-to-inquiries-about-Harry-Reid-comment.html
http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/church-responds-to-inquiries-on-enda--same-sex-marriage
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints issued a statement repeating its position on same-sex marriage. The position hasn't changed. The church remains (One) in support of traditional marriage and (Two) in favor of treating those with same-sex attraction with kindness and understanding.
So, what of the bill just passed by the Senate, the Employment Non-Discrimination Act? The church said it has not taken a position on it.
Me? I have some feelings in favor of the bill, but have not given it enough attention to come to an opinion. I do wonder if we should consider, though, that, yes, there might be some jobs in which employers should not be required by law to hire those of same-sex orientation. From what I know of the bill, wouldn't churches, Boy Scouts, and youth programs all alike be required to hire those of same sex? This thought prompts me to consider that I am against the bill. There are organizations that value traditional marriage over non-traditional marriage. While they are respectful of those of same-sex attraction, it is not a way of life they ascribe to, and they should have the right to have their values in their workplace.
You can respect another person's opinion, You can understand they do not believe as you do. They value same-sex marriage and same-sex lifestyles. Let them. But this does not mean if your organization's very existence is based on the values that include traditional marriage that you should be forced to have non-traditional marriage in your own worksite.
Let each side have the environment of their choice. That is only fair.
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865590140/LDS-Church-responds-to-inquiries-about-Harry-Reid-comment.html
http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/church-responds-to-inquiries-on-enda--same-sex-marriage
Wednesday, November 6, 2013
GMOs Should be Subject to Independent Studies
Here's the thought that struck me last night: Are the companies marketing GMOs free from having anyone study the safety of their products, simply because their plants are patented? Alas, when the thought came to me, it was late and I went to bed without looking into it.
I woke to find the link below. Alas, it is late and I will go to bed without reading the full of it.
It does seem to me Congress should step in, passing legislation allowing independent research of the GMOs. The legislation should require the companies to take any product off the market that is not made available to independent research. The legislation can specify that no product can be copied for sale. As for someone learning the secrets of how to make the seeds, that is what patents are for. Even though someone might discover how to do it, they cannot, because you have the patent on it.
http://gmo-awareness.com/all-about-gmos/gmo-science-sources-relationships/
I woke to find the link below. Alas, it is late and I will go to bed without reading the full of it.
It does seem to me Congress should step in, passing legislation allowing independent research of the GMOs. The legislation should require the companies to take any product off the market that is not made available to independent research. The legislation can specify that no product can be copied for sale. As for someone learning the secrets of how to make the seeds, that is what patents are for. Even though someone might discover how to do it, they cannot, because you have the patent on it.
http://gmo-awareness.com/all-about-gmos/gmo-science-sources-relationships/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)