In the various talks, debates, and arguments about the merits and details of national health care/health insurance reform, I have become increasingly confused at the position of the religious right on this issue and, indeed, on their position on most social issues, not just health care.   They, along with most of the conservatives are hellbent on stopping any sort of reform in any format or flavor.    What confuses me about this, however, is that it simply doesn’t fit their moral structure.

Frankly, religious right — WTFWJD, eh?

Here’s the thing — based on the teachings of Jesus, Mohammed, Buddha, or any of your typical mainstream religious figures, the staunchly religious should be all over social reforms such as poverty, homelessness, and health care, right?    I mean, what did these great teachers instruct if not tolerance, kindness, taking care of the poor, the sick, the needy, befriending the outcast, reaching out to the lowest or loneliest in society and wrapping them up in arms of love, service, and help?   They as a group should be jumping all over the idea that we’re trying to reform health care so more people get the proper care and we add the 40+ million uninsured Americans into the system.

And yet on that side of the aisle we see exactly the opposite, opposing reform, opposing taking resources from those that “have” to give to those that “have not” and generally turning a blind eye and an upturned nose on those who can’t make it as easily as they have.    “They’re just lazy,” comes the reply when you ask about the lower-class family struggling to feed their children and keep a roof over their heads.   “If they just worked harder, they could have health care insurance, too.”

It’s simply astounding to me at the attitude carried by this group about social matters.    Instead of, “alms for the poor”, it’s “go work at Walmart”.     When considering a proposal to provide cheap housing to low-income neighborhoods, the response is, “Stupid bum — why don’t you get a job and buy a house?”   Eyes roll at the kids who have to get free or reduced lunches in order to get a decent meal — “Bloodsucking parents…”

Their rhetoric spreads far and wide in teabagging protests and angry townhall meetings — “You are NOT entitled to what I earn!”    Oh, really?    Let’s hope God thinks you’re entitled to what you earn, you hypocrite.   Maybe you ought to be a better steward of your earthly riches?

The counter-argument to this is that such donations to help the less-fortunate should be given voluntarily, not through government intervention.   As nice of a sentiment as this is, it obviously doesn’t work or we wouldn’t have the problem in the first place. The fact is, most of these people touting these ideas are hypocrites and prefer to hang onto their cash at all costs, the needy and desperate around them be damned.   At least I will be freely honest about the fact that I don’t donate much to charity because I prefer to use it on my own family.    But even I’m not enough of an asshole to say, “Oh, no, don’t raise my taxes slightly so more people can get health care.   I prefer having that on my conscience.”

There is far too much emphasis being placed on whose fault it is that we have the poor and lowly amongst us and not enough action being done to attempt to correct it.    There are legitimate concerns, I realize — some folks in these tight positions are there because they were incompetant or reckless — but does taking the attitude that they must all be in that position really do anything to help or resolve the issue?    Instead, it ends up being a distraction to the real problem at hand — we have under- or uninsured people getting sick, going broke, and sometimes dying because they can’t get the help they need.     How do we solve this?

In the end, if the religious right is going to preach a particular theology, then they would do well to live by it.   After all, Jesus did not ask Mary Magdaelene for her financial records to see if she was a prostitute out of desperation or because she gambled it all away.    He did not tell Zacheus, “I’m coming to your house — but only if you’re not crooked.”    He did not commission his followers to be servants to humankind just so they could make excuses about why they shouldn’t.

Who knows?  God might even approve.

Under attacks from the right and severe lack of backbone from the left, health care reform is starting to wobble on its feet.    While I remain a steadfast supporter of reform on both moral and economic grounds, the process is in trouble.    Between lies and half-truths being tossed by the Republicans in the face of reform and the Democrats inability to properly deflect them, the ship is taking on too much water and without some change will probably founder.    This should not happen.

I think it can be saved — and I think we can benefit from a good, solid bill that enacts real reform — but the President and his supporters must change course and tactics and must do it soon or however poorly-designed the arguments of the opposition may be the American people, and ultimately the support beneath the bill, will fall away into oblivion.

Get On Message — The White House must get their entire staff back on a single, solid, concise message.    Instead of coming out of the chute with guns blazing, this administration has sauntered into the park holding a bill on a platter and were surprised that they were attacked from the bushes.   Put on the battle gear, grow a pair, give out the orders to everyone on the team, and get marching in lockstep.     The message from the White House must be solid, without holes, and consistent.

Stick to Your Guns — Speaking of a consistent message, the President must come out on national television in front of Congress and say, “This is what we want for health care reform — points A, B, C.   Anything else, I will VETO — period.”    And he must stand behind that decision, no matter what the polls say, no matter how the votes appear to be swinging.    If you’re going to be bold, you have to stick to it or nobody will believe you, and right now, nobody thinks anyone’s really serious except the fear-mongers.

Public Option or Bust — The President’s punch list for reform must include the public option without it being a possible drop point.   It is the only way true reform can happen and everyone knows it.   Quit listening to the detractors and waffling on it. This is
not
a recipe
for doughnuts, it’s
health care reform.This is not a recipe for doughnuts, it’s health care reform.

The Buck Stops Here — President Obama must come out and state exactly how they are going to pay for reform, whether in the form of savings, taxes, discounts, or other means.    The numbers must be clean, clear, and understandable without an accounting degree.   He must stop skirting around the fact that in order to pay for this, people will have to be taxed.    We citizens are not stupid, and if you tell it how it is, we’re likely to back you, but you cannot hide from what is the truth.    If you’re going to sock it to the rich, then say that.   If you’re going to raise all of our taxes by a margin to cover everyone else, tell us how much.      We want to know the bottom line and then we’re likely to sign the check.

Go to the People — The President must engage the public media like he did during the candidacy and go on any newscast, talk show, and public media that will listen.   He must call a national address and engage all networks.    Taking along the solid, concise message of the first point, he needs to present it to the American people over and over, using graphs or videos or flowcharts or dayglo chimpanzees — whatever visual aids will help everyone understand the benefits and costs of health care reform and how it will affect them.     Almost everyone I know is confused and knows little about what this bill will or won’t do and that must stop. Everyone should be talking about it around the water cooler and we should all know the exact picture, whether or not we agree with it.

Tighten the Screws — Once all this has been done, the White House must then put enormous pressure on its Democratic base in both houses to perform and align with their message.   If that means calling every representative into a conference and having a Come-To-Jesus talk, so be it.    Stop the sound bites of Democrats waffling within their own swimming pool while the Republicans dance outside and point fingers — it’s embarrassing.

Stop Beating the Dead Horse — The entire Democratic party along with the White House must stop talking of “bipartisanship”.     It is worthless.     We all well know that most Republicans do not want to reform health care and therefore will at best water down the reform and at worst kill it, this sort of bill must not be signed with the least bit of dilution.

If Necessary, Go Down Gracefully — If, after all this solidarity, marketing to the public, demands of the Congress, and adherence to a clear principle you cannot get the votes, you can’t get them — simple as that.   This is Landmark Reform™ — it might not happen this round, although we need it desperately.    But the clear and simple way of ensuring that, if it dies, you will not be able to resurrect it for another 10-20 years is to waffle and cajole and weasel and compromise it into a small, weak shadow of its original intent.      Better to lose and lose big than to be decimated into pieces too small to put together again or, worse yet, to implement a bill that ends up being a drooling half-wit representation of Real Change.

We need to have health care reform.    I think most Americans want health care reform, but we all want it to be done correctly, clearly, and decisively.     This can and should truly be a huge turning point in our history as a country.

Usually I’m content to simply leave a short comment on each of Meghann McCain’s articles posted on The Daily Beast, but today I thought I’d write a dissenting opinion on my own blog concerning something that is very controversial around my area of the country, and that is gun control.    Meghann’s posting yesterday, “Why I Love Guns”, not only missed the mark in the argument about gun control but simply re-stated that which the Republicans and the NRA have been chanting for years.     It is one of the first time she has said something I disagree with, so I’m going to call her on it as well as find out where my readership sits on this issue.

Your “typical” NRA member seems to tout the gun line as, “I have a RIGHT to have a gun, any gun, anytime, all the time, and you shouldn’t ever stand in the way for me to have one.   If I or anyone else uses it irresponsibly, then that’s the breaks.     Just because there are crazies with guns doesn’t mean I should have a hard time getting my hands on one.   Their view of Democrats is, “You should NEVER have guns!   Guns bad!”     Liberals extol the number of gun-related deaths and the amounts of rednecks and nutjobs with firepower roaming around the country in Jeeps.

Let’s clear the smoke here, shall we?   Honestly — you’re all looking like idiots.    You, too, Meghann, and I’ve liked you from the start, but…whew.   Swing and a miss, dearie.

First off, the liberals do NOT want to take away guns.   Oh, sure, there’s some folks out there that want to eliminate them entirely from everyone, but those folk are about as prominent as the conservatives that think we should hand every kindergartner a Glock upon entering school for their own protection.   The vast majority of liberals simply want the following:

• much tighter laws and penalties to control gun sales and acquisition
• much tighter laws and penalties on gun storage, license, and usage

That’s it, really.   We don’t think guns, in and of themselves, are evil things, but an awful lot of terrible things have been committed with guns and it behooves us as a society to improve how we view and handle these potentially dangerous items.   By doing so, not only can we protect ourselves and others from improper usage, but we preserve the right of people to have and use guns because they won’t be viewed by the extremes as being terrible things.

I believe that anyone of a legal age (18) should be able to procure and operate a firearm.  I believe that the higher the firearm you wish to purchase the more checks you will have to go through in order to do so.   For a BB gun, you probably don’t need any particular proof.   For a shotgun, passing a safety course is requisite.    A rifle has a higher requirement, maybe a background check and a waiting time.    Handguns are even higher, incorporating the previous plus adding in long wait times, full background checks, and an extended safety course on handgun-specific safety, storage, and usage.   Carrying concealed is even higher, probably with poly tests and a psych eval.   Assault weapons are simply banned outright as they have no practical use whatsoever.

Does this sound harsh?   Perhaps, but we go through a similar scheme when getting a license to drive — learner’s permit, school permit, driver’s license (car/light truck), then you can move up to chauffeurs and eventually CDL and other heavy-truck licenses.    We don’t let an uneducated 16-year-old get behind the wheel of an 18-wheeler and neither should we allow a new, unknown gun owner behind the barrel of a .45 pistol without the proper evaluation and training.    This isn’t being exclusive, as the NRA would have you believe, but smart and preventative.

Is this so bad?   Why does the NRA fight something like this that sounds so…reasonable?   Am I missing something?