The One Part of Obamacare I agree with

It is no secret that I am not a rabid Obama supporter. I feel the man is not qualified for the job he holds (no, I'm not a birther. I am simply alluding to the fact that he has very little experience for the most powerful executive position in the world.)

But, that being said, one aspect of the proposed medical reform package actually makes some sense.

A lifetime ago, I used to sell heath insurance. I know a little about this.

Ever wonder why most people get their insurance through their employer? The reason is 'adverse selection '. Insurance is about risk. We buy insurance to cover us for the chance something bad will happen to us that would be devastating financially (house burn down, we get sick, etc) . By pooling large groups of people together, the insurance company can run statistics and perdict about how much claims will be, and can figure out how much everyone has to pay to cover the claims (and a make the company a profit).

Sick people are more likely to want to buy health insurance than healthy people. If you try to buy health insurance on your own, the chance that you are healthy and being careful is small, but the chance that your sick and want them to pay your bills is large, hence a larger bill.

Group insurance (like the policies sold to employers as part of a fringe benefit package), though, covers the healthy and the sick. The reason the people are being cover is because of where they work, not their health status. Thus, group policies are way, way, way cheaper than individual polices.

Part of Obama's idea (if you can call a bill originating in the House or Senate Obama's Idea) is to mandate health coverage. This would reduce the amount adverse selection, and allow individuals to start getting much rates.

While it makes sense, I do worry about the government saying "you must buy a product, even if you don't want to."

Marvelous design

I am astounded at the marvel of God's creation!

While doing some study on spiders, I learned a great deal about their circulatory system (they don't really have one in the same manner as we), and read how their systems, while much simpler and less efficient than ours, fits perfectly with their needs.

On one hand, the sources (mostly Wikipedia) talk of the design and explain its complexities and how well it fits the animal, then talk about how it all occurred by chance.

I don't get it. How can these very bright people look at something so complex, so well suited to their environments, and more efficiently engineered than the best sports car and say,
"It all happened by accident. Just chance. There is no designer of this design."

Prayer

Normally, if I blog about my faith, I do so here in my other blog, but this is a political reflection.

There has been a serious change in this nation since the 1960's, thanks mostly to the ACLU. Yes, our friends, who champion removing God, promoting homosexuality, protecting child porn, and pediophiles, have been bringing law suites against schools in which prayer is offered by a non-student. They cite the crystal clear line of a wall of separation between church and state as their motivator.  This wall of separation is found in the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, in the Bill of Rights.

For those who may not be familiar with the Constitution, it would seem the issues was clear cut.  After all, doesn't the Constitution say that government and religion should have no interaction whatsoever.  As oil and water, government and religion can't be mixed.

The Text
The text is found in the First Amendment to the Constitution. The text in question is ...

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

This is rather dense. In this one amendment we have freedoms of press, of speech, assemble and petition.  Let's uncompress it a bit, since were interested in the section dealing with freedom of religion.  That section reads.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

Since the words of the Constitution do not magically change when the Supreme Court reads them, let's try tor understand what this is saying.  It forbids the Federal Legislature, i.e. Congress, from either establishing a religion or prohibiting the free exercise of religion. 

At the heart of the debate of student-led prayer, the display of the Ten Commandments, the hosting of Nativity scenes on the court house lawn and a million other issues is that little word "establishment."

At the time this was written, nearly every nation had an official religion, supported by taxes, and imposed on the people against their will. Usually, the religion of the monarch was the official religion of the land, and those who practiced something else were either at best, taxed to support the State religion, while their own beliefs were tolerated, or at worst, hunted down and killed.

The establishment of religion actually can be rephrased as

"the government shall not create, nor fund an official church"

Please Notice the second clause. Congress cannot prevent the FREE EXERCISE OF RELIGION. This is co-equal to the first clause. They are both valid. They both are talking about FREEDOM OF RELIGION!

We have now come to a place where the "FREE EXERCISE" of religion is squelched in order to preserve the fallacy of "separation of Church and State"

Jefferson said

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his god, ... that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state.
I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection and blessing of the common Father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves and your religious association, assurances of my high respect and esteem.
(signed) Thomas Jefferson
Jan.1.1802.

The intent was not to be hostile to the expression of religion!  It was not to prevent religion from having any impact on government.  It was to keep the state out of the matter of the church, as he said "that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his god."

Furthermore, this limits ONLY THE CONGRESS, not the courts, not the executive branch, nor the states!  See the phrase "Congress shall"?  Look at the wording of the Second Amendment

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

 The key, dear reader, is that the Second Amendment was written such that the Federal, State or Local governments could not infringe on this right.

Now, I am not advocating for Catholic Priests teaching catechisms in public school.  Nor am I suggesting that Mormons, Muslims or Baptists do the same.  As a Christian, I believe in the Golden Rule of "Do unto others as you would have them do to you."  We should show respect for other's beliefs while expressing our own.

And student led prayer is free exercise of religion, with is unambiguously protected by the First Amendment.  (Sort of.)

Immigration Stupidity

I was reading this article today, and had to comment on the stupidity therein contained.

The author kept using the euphemism "Undocumented immigrants." That's like saying "unauthorized, non-customer withdraws" to describe a bank robbery!

Mr. Koulish's position is irrational. This nation has laws on immigration that are being violated wholesale, and it seems his position is that we should ignore the violation.

If the laws are wrong, fine, change them. No nation of laws can exist by ignoring the laws it finds inconvenient. By doing so, it devalues all laws.

Furthermore, his statement about the "destruction of families" caused by deportation of an illegal arrested for a "minor infractions" ignores that they are already lawbreakers by being here illegally. If I robbed a bank, and then got picked up for littering, does it mean that the police should ignore the bank robbery charges?

Finally, he stated that '"securing the border" is indefinable, unmeasurable". This is hogwash total, ridiculous pig's bath water! How about we define securing the border 'preventing unauthorized border crossing'? How about measuring it by the number of legal interdictions?

I've said it before, I'll say it again. Illegal immigration is a topic neither party wants to deal with, and this creates a de facto slave class, which is so wrong I could just scream. It is not fair for lower-income Americans, it's not fair for the Mexican, it's not fair to the community asked to bear the burden of the influx of low skill, low income, poorly educated people. It needs fixing, but I doubt I'll ever see it.