The haves and have-nots in the wealthiest country in the world

I can accept - and even celebrate - that there are people of goodwill on both sides of the debate regarding the newly signed health care law. One of the things that has always made this country great is our ability to publicly disagree with each other, and bow to the desires of the majority, even while working to adopt our own desired policies.

So although I may get into a spirited discussion with family and/or friends over the desirability of another government-mandated program, I don't ever place the value of my position above the value of the relationship. I'm a relationship-oriented person. Always have been, always will be.

What I'm not okay with is fear-mongering, name-calling, race-baiting, demagoguery, and outlandish lies to try to influence the citizenry. I'm also not okay with elected officials leading, promoting, spreading, and otherwise encouraging other members of their party to stand in united opposition to an elected official - in this case, the President of the United States. When three members of the Republican House stood on the balcony of the Capitol Building on Saturday, holding three signs saying "Kill" "The" "Bill" I was appalled at their unprofessionalism in playing to a crowd of dissidents. There used to be a standard of behavior that was not only expected but was actually exhibited in Washington, DC. Today it's less like "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington," and more like Larry, Curly, and Moe.

I'm tired of the lies about "Death Panels," increased costs and decreased coverage for Medicare recipients, and the lockstep behavior of the Republicans in office. Although some Republicans point to the "Nay" votes cast by some Democratic Congresspersons as a lack of support by the full Party, my opinion is that it simply points out that Democrats are able to think for themselves and don't have to all march to the same tune as is the case in the Republican Party.

I was also appalled at the name-calling and threatening signs on display by the "Tea Party" movement on Saturday. As one commenter said, the Tea Party slogan seems to be "Do what we want and nobody gets hurt." I do understand that not everyone in the Tea Party movement or the Republican Party shares these sentiments, but my mother always told me that you're known by the company you keep. Most appalling of all are the people who take this kind of behavior to heart and feel inspired to either act or call upon others to act to rid the nation of a perceived threat.

I must confess, too, that I really don't understand the reluctance among some people to have access to affordable health insurance. When my children were small, good health insurance was a definite plus when you looked for a job. And, for some, it still is. My youngest son and his wife have a health insurance shortage because of his job loss late last year. One of the things he looks for in interviews is what health insurance is offered.

When I was a young wife and mother, we had excellent company-paid health insurance. Yes, fully paid premiums and good benefits. Slowly, over the years, the company began to transfer some of the cost of the premiums to the employees, but it still wasn't an onerous amount and we still had good benefits. It was not the cost of doing business that caused these premiums to increase - since this happened during the corporate-friendly Reagan years - but the sharp increase in premiums, which were also a consequence of the Big Business worship of the Reagan years. Eventually, the company - Eastern Airlines - folded, and health insurance was the least of our worries.

As I grow older and become more and more aware of the fragility of life, I do find it hard to understand why so many people don't think insurance is helpful to them. Another of my sons and his wife do not wish to have any but catastrophic coverage, backed up by a Health Savings Plan for routine medical care. I kind of understand their thinking (and I don't think there's anything in the new law that prohibits this), but I also know that without this law that prohibits lifetime limits and pre-existing conditions clauses, even their choice of coverage wouldn't be practical. With medical costs at an all-time high (and climbing) policy limits would be quickly reached. And with insurance companies denying care to newborns for "pre-existing conditions," a seriously ill infant could mean bankruptcy for the family.

Yes, I know there are those who decry this new law as an "entitlement," and they vigorously oppose it on those grounds. But, if, as some claim, we are a "Christian nation," then caring for others should be second nature. Donating to charity instead of paying taxes may sound like a good idea, but charities have no way to reach the vast majority of those who need help, and can't help all those who ask for it. And those who would choose to donate couldn't - or wouldn't - be able to provide for all those in need.

So instead of decrying our government's attempts to help those who cannot - for whatever reason - help themselves, let us reclaim the compassionate and generous spirit for which we were once known. This new law will have absolutely no effect on my health care - I neither gain nor lose - but I know many for whom it will be a lifeline and I believe that's what America should celebrate.

When both feet are in your mouth - and you don't notice it

It's been a eventful few weeks in politics.

First, we had the news that Rush Limbaugh was rushed to the hospital while on Christmas holiday in Hawaii with chest pains. As one radio talk show host put it, he apparently wasn't yet "shovel ready," so he made several pronouncements on health care as soon as he got to a microphone.

After directing anyone who has chest pain, "Don't mess with it. Any time you have heart pain or chest pain and you have no idea what it is, and it's something you've never experienced before, turn it over to professionals right off the bat. Don't tough it out. Don't try to make it go away on your own, because it's not worth the risk." Of course, Mr. Limbaugh has excellent health insurance and doesn't have to worry about unpaid hospital bills, or if he'll be able to feed his kids if he misses a few days from work, but, hey, Rush says, just do it! After all, if you don't have health insurance, it's probably your fault anyway.

Next, he was lavish with his praise for the care he received: "Again, the treatment I received here was the best that the world has to offer. Based on what happened to me here, I don't think there's one thing wrong with the American health care system. It's working just fine, just dandy. And I got nothing special. I got no special treatment other than what anybody else that would have called 911 would have gotten had they been brought in with the same kinds of symptoms. The care was extensive, it was personal, and it was complete, and it was very confidence-inspiring. And I never once -- once I got here -- had any fears, because of the manner in which I was treated." He failed to acknowledge the embarassing fact that Hawaii's health care is excruciatingly similar to the "socialized" system he's been excoriating the Democrats for trying to bring about for the entire nation. As noted by Paul Abrams on the Huffington Post (and many others), Hawaii has among the lowest costs for health care in the nation, even though almost every other consumer item costs more. Why? Because it's socialized. And it doesn't affect the quality of care - at least according to Rush's experience.

Why, then, does he rail so loudly and annoyingly against the same high-quality, low-cost care for those who don't have his monetary and societal privilege? Why does he encourage people by lying about what a universal system of care for the nation would mean to all of us - not just the fortunate few? And - this is the important piece - why in hell do so many people believe him?

Of course, Rush's brush with socialized medicine wasn't the only big news over the holidays. We also had the Christmas Day "underpants bomber" who not only failed to blow up a plane (thanks to the passengers), but also failed to become a martyr - although he may well have consigned himself to a particular kind of hell in the afterlife: 72 virgins and he won't have the stuff to enjoy them with.

It didn't take long for Dick Cheney and other Republicans to criticize Pres. Obama for not rushing immediately to the microphones to make a statement. Yes, he waited three days; that's still three days less than it took Pres. Bush to comment on the shoe bomber, but since Rudy Giuliani thinks the shoe bomber and 9/11happened before Bush became President, they apparently don't count.

Nor does Liz Cheney seem to ascribe any terrorism attacks to the Bush Administration. Instead, channeling her father, she chastises Pres. Obama for not going on television sooner to address the attempted Christmas Day bombing attempt. I think both former Vice Pres. Cheney and his daughter are causing more harm to our national security by their continual attempts to characterize Obama as soft on terror. As the junior Senator from Minnesota stated recently, “We are entitled to our own opinions; we are not entitled to our own facts."

Although Sen. Franken was referring to the health care bill currently before Congress, his words certainly ring true in the case of the recent mischaracterizations regarding Obama's policies on terrorism.

The truly unfortunate aspect of all these incidents, however, is that so many on the far Right are accepting the lies and distortions by Limbaugh, Cheney, and Cheney, et al, as the unvarnished truth. In all my years following political arguments, I've never seen so many who are so willing to ignore the truth just to further their own agendas.

This doesn't bode well for the future of our nation, as we move more and more toward grandstanding and historical revision by people who hold the populace in such low regard.