Why I married better than my wife
This weekend was my wife and I’s 11th wedding anniversary. I was such a child when I got married. I think the naive ignorance of it all for both Gretchen and I have such a great marriage. We have grown up as adults together. But I would be remiss to let my anniversary pass without giving you 11 uniquely awesome things about my wife and why we do so well together. In no particular order.
1) My wife and I agree that chocolate peanut butter is the best ice cream flavor
2) My wife can read the same book over and over again and not grow tired of it. If she likes something, she keeps going back to the well to enjoy it. (This bodes well for me)
3) We both hate pets. (This is the bedrock of our marriage)
4) While I always look older than my age (being short, fat, and balding will do that) my wife always looks younger than her age.
5) My wife is hot
6) When she is charming people she doesn’t know my wife becomes very southern. (like Steel Magnolias Southern!)
7) While she is a pastor’s wife, Gretchen doesn’t own any jumpers or wear her hair in a bun.
8) My wife is competitive enough that she regularly throws dice at me when we play board games against each other. I love it every time she gets that fired up.
9) Gretchen is fascinated by the social structure of polygamist families
10) My wife buys me video games for big holidays
11) Without my wife I would be bankrupt, depressed, disheveled, and so bored.
11 Years = Sword Fighting
My wife hooked me up with the new Wii Sports Resort for our anniversary. I think my arm is about ready to fall off after a weekend of sword fighting, frisbee and wakeboarding. It is a must have for all you Wii users out there. My highlights from the game are Frisbee Golf, Wakeboarding, 100 Pin Bowling ( I bowled an 1885 on Saturday) and The Speed Slicing on Swords. A big improvement over the original without losing the simple pleasures of the original. Great anniversary gift!
More on Health Care
This article on the health care insurance debate is one of the best ones I have read from a Christian perspective. What I have been wrestling with throughout this debate are two strong beliefs that can pull against each other in our country. The first is a strong Christian belief in seeking out the most vulnerable members of our society and trying to do everything possible to help them find sustainable holistic living. This ethic is prevalent throughout scripture as an expected way of life for Christians. The other piece of that is that I don’t expect or think it is prudent to expect the government to provide the assistance that these people need. Bureaucracy almost never equals efficient stewardship of resources or people. Our governments continued failure with many programs aimed at social service is a strong example of this truth.
So a larger government with more bureaucracy over health care doesn’t seem like any answer to the pressing and serious issue of those with inadequate health care in our country. I believe as Christians we have a calling to protect those most at risk regardless of legal status as citizens or social make up. But, at the same time, expanding the government’s role in this matter is something I can not imagine bettering an broken situation.
So maybe it is time for us as Christians to regain our historical excellence in providing these services. As the church expanded around the globe, education and health care were always two things it brought with it. From the beginning we have sought to better the lives of those who are ministering to. After all this is part of the gospel of holistic redemption that Christ brought us. So maybe we need to start looking at filling in the gaps ourselves instead of relying on the government to fix this problem. It used to be that we didn’t expect the government to do our job. If we were serious about providing these things as the church, maybe our health care system wouldn’t be in the shape it is.
I have a hard time supporting the legislation being pushed by the White House, but that doesn’t mean that I don’t recognize the brokenness of the system or the need for reform. I just hope that the church can collectively offer to those in need that which government programs will never have the ability to.
***** Good thoughts on the issue, here by Bishop Will Willimon *******
August 25, 2009 at 8:27 am
So I read the article by John Mark Reynolds, and I have to disagree on it’s goodness, the only thing I get from that article is fear. Fear of what might happen in a worse case scenario.
People lacking the means to get health care is not a new problem. It’s been around for decades, and it is still a problem today. To be frank, we, the Church, have dropped the ball, but I wish we hadn’t because this is a perfect calling for us. That’s not to say there hasn’t been an attempt at all, I recognize the efforts of many to help those in need but realistically I don’t see ‘health care’, as a whole, getting fixed by the Church. At least not on it’s own.
I don’t think that this has to be something that can only be solved by one party. Why can’t we as Christian’s support the government’s efforts? Why can’t we supplement the government’s solution in our local congregations and towns? Why can’t we be involved in the process now with as much of a voice as we have to try to shape the government’s efforts?
My point here is that I see real promise for the beginning of a solution now. I believe we should support it with the goal of providing for the least of us.
-David
August 25, 2009 at 10:54 am
David,
I don’t think the article had much of an overtone of fear, just a weighed perspective on the cost of putting the power of all these questions into the hands of the government.
The church isn’t going to fix health care, but Christians can make an impact where government can not. I think this is what you mean by supplementing the government’s efforts, but once there is a bureaucracy in place to run health care how will we have a voice to shape it? The bigger this gets the harder it is to change it.
I agree with you, however, that we are at a moment when change can take place, but it just seems what is being proposed is not nearly understood enough to carry our support right now. I very much want to see those without proper health insurance get help now, I just don’t want to mortgage our future ability to provide help to do so if there are better alternatives.
August 25, 2009 at 1:58 pm
I would argue that there are no better alternatives than a government option. The issue has grown too large for anyone other than Washington to deal with it.
Looking at things realistically, in an effort to provide relief to those who are suffering, what better alternatives do you see? I will admit that if there is something better I’m behind it.
I’m for the solution, or at least the beginning of it. But I’ve heard nothing in the objections that has been a rational alternative. Part of the problem there might be that there is so much noise in this debate that you can’t hear much of anything.
That article it totally about fear, or about generating fear. From his article:
“Society loses things when it gives more power to government even when it gains something else.”
There are plenty of things that the government does that we are better off for, (protecting our freedom of religion is one of them) but this goes with the next paragraph…
“Liberty is a great good. The more power we give to the government the less liberty we will have. Diversity is also good and, as we are frequently reminded, the United States has become more diverse in the area of ethics. Increasing government control over health care increases the number of ethical issues where government authority will have to be on one side or the other of these disputes.”
His implication in whole article is that if we pass a health care bill we are all of a sudden less free as a nation. Really? Maybe, if you’re an insurance company.
-David
August 26, 2009 at 10:56 am
This would be a good start:
http://www.newmediajournal.us/staff/segel/2009/print/08262009.htm
August 26, 2009 at 10:36 am
I would argue that there are no better alternatives than a government option.
Good luck!
Perform a comparison between the United States Postal Service and UPS and/or the USPS and FED EX. If there is a better non-government option to get packages from point A to point B, which the government can’t do as efficiently/productively (nor profitably), what gives you so much faith in the governemnt’s ability to address the issues in the much more complex health care industry?
By the way, what do you consider the immediate/ dire health care issues to be? What needs to be addressed and resolved?
If the government can’t figure out how to streamline the mail business to produce cost savings, why would you argue that there are no better alternatives than a government option for the more complex health care industry (with a much bigger budget)?
Really? Maybe, if you’re an insurance company.
Ah, yes…the evil insurance company. While the demonized insurance companies have been turning a 3% industry wide net profit (oh the obscenity), the Obama admin./Democrats have been letting big labor, pharmaceutical companies, and the their lobbyists write their interests, to the tune of billions of dollars, into the “health care reform bill” in return for their active support of the reform bill (funding and armies/busloads of supporters). Why should this bill be a vehicle for the bailout of big labor’s mismanaged pension plans? What does that have to do with “health care reform”? Isn’t that just politics and business as usual (Chicago style)?
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/54816897.html
If insurance companies are evil, then what are pharmaceutical companies (which turn a 15.5% industry wide net profit margin)? Why are lobbyists even near this bill when Obama promised the end of lobbyist influence in Washington DC?
This proposed bill (H.R. 3200) really has not much to do with providing low cost health insurance to an alleged 47 million uninsured (just look at the content), but one thing is for sure: the proposed bill certainly levies a large debt/tax burden on this generation and those to come…in addition to the huge debt/tax burden established through the stimulus and bailout bills.
August 26, 2009 at 11:21 am
The postal analogy for the health care industry is not comparing apples to apples. The USPS was first and Fed Ex and UPS came along because there was a business need to get quicker delivery of packages than the USPS provided. The opposite is the case here, the private companies aren’t solving the problem so the government is stepping in. Had they, we probably wouldn’t be having a health care discussion.
I’m not even sure you can fairly compare Fed Ex and UPS to the USPS. The USPS delivers to every home and business in the US, almost every day. That’s a large part of their business (and expense).
By the way, what do you consider the immediate/ dire health care issues to be? What needs to be addressed and resolved?
Really? That’s my whole point, the whole reason I am defending health care reform! 47 million people (debatable because it includes people who aren’t looking for health care) don’t have insurance. That’s the problem. There are people living among us who can’t go to the doctor because it costs too much. This is unacceptable to our calling as Christians. There is no moral argument against solving this problem.
Ah, yes…the evil insurance company.
I didn’t mean that in the sense that I was calling them evil. Those companies have as much right to make money as any other. But in my point – John Mark Reynolds’ claim that we would lose liberties as a result of the health care legislation is bogus – I was saying that insurance companies will probably be affected in some way by reform, it will not continue to be the status quo for them.
And I’ll admit that I hadn’t read H.R. 3200 but I just looked it up and this is right there at the beginning:
(1) IN GENERAL- The purpose of this division is to provide affordable, quality health care for all Americans and reduce the growth in health care spending.
Sounds exactly like providing low cost health insurance to an alleged 47 million uninsured.
-David
August 26, 2009 at 1:22 pm
Hey David,
It wasn’t meant to be just an apples to apples comparison (which it is because they both provide the same services). It was more saying, if an entity can’t profitably run a lemonade stand at the end of the street, don’t believe their lofty claims and consent to make it law that they run every high end restaurant in town. It would be doomed for failure. There is an established record. If you don’t want just an analogy, just look at the bankrupt Medicare program. The government can’t/won’t do it as well as private industry.
47 million is very debateable because it includes those who can afford health insurance and choose not to have it and illegal aliens. Many sources site the real number as only a fraction of that number.
If you are just looking to solve the issue of millions of uninsured, then why impact everyone’s health insurance by socializing health care in its entirety? Why does the government have to interfere with the health care/health insurance of those who are already happily/effectively insured?
Not being able to make 100% of the choices as it relates to your medical care is a loss of liberties. Not being able to choose your health insurance; your doctor; your treatment options; and etc. is a loss of liberties. Having the government ration health care is a loss of liberties. Being burdened with an incredible debt and tax load is, also, a loss of liberties. That isn’t something to scoff at.
The government has no Constitutional authority to make any decisions/any mandates in regard to a persons health care and health insurance.
You are awfully trusting of the folks that have robbed Social Security to the point of bankruptcy…why? They said that they weren’t going to do that too.
Like the article I linked to said, if they were really trying to provide affordable health insurance for the uninsured, the language would be simple, straight forward and condensed. If it just had the goal of insuring the uninsured in mind, it would have been written by practitioners and not lawyers and lobbyists.
And…phase 1 of health care reform was already established in the Stimulus Bill, which funded (via billions of dollars) the creation of a “health czar” and a health panel that will analyze the cost effectiveness of health care and treatment protocol. They aren’t just looking at it with the perspective of insuring the 47 million uninsured.
Socialized medicine has not worked as well as our current system works…even for the uninsured.
Playing Robin Hood with other folks money, while weakening the overall quality of health care provided to the majority(and while funding abortion), does not constitute Christian duty and justice…not by any means. It is just Socialism…pure and simple.
Regards,
August 26, 2009 at 11:06 am
Paul,
Thanks I liked the article you posted. The tone was a bit sharp, but it did offer a practical suggestion that might help.
I was actually going to offer the same government comparison that you did when it came to mail and Fed Ex, that really made me laugh.
August 26, 2009 at 1:25 pm
Great minds…
August 26, 2009 at 11:45 am
So as to not get too serious, let me also say that #2 in your original post, Greg, made me chuckle.
-David
September 3, 2009 at 10:48 am
Death panel alert!
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/6127514/Sentenced-to-death-on-the-NHS.html
September 9, 2009 at 7:44 am
More death panel alert:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1211950/Premature-baby-left-die-doctors-mother-gives-birth-just-days-22-week-care-limit.html
It wasn’t against the death panel’s rules to save the premature baby’s life.