Another American Icon Advocating Death Panels

In April 2009, Sarah Palin suggested that the health care bill being debated in Congress would create death panels; Health care would have to be rationed and health care decisions would be made based on your value to society. She was roundly ridiculed for this statement. "How could anyone believe something so absurd?"

That was before it became law.

Two months ago, another icon of American success made a similar statement that nobody is ridiculing. During a conference at the Aspen Institute, Bill Gates, founder of Microsoft, stated that we should have the discussion about the benefits of allowing someone to die a few months early so that we can save the jobs of ten teachers.

Gates continued, "But that's called a death panel, and you're not supposed to have that discussion. . . because of our penchant for generosity [in our end-of-life decisions] we will be laying off over 100,000 teachers, which, you know, I'm very much against that." ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NrJBY2l1MQQ )

I highly value our public teachers. There are many who are underpaid, and whose jobs are in jeopardy. But we live in a dangerous time when celebrities like Bill Gates can advocate a speedy death for some individuals so that others, who are more beneficial to society, can keep their jobs. Where should we stop? Do we refuse to treat terminal cancer patients so that we can pay first responders like police and firefighters? Do we sacrifice Down's Syndrome individuals so that we can build better highway bridges?

Is there any job that is so valuable that we can justify "buying" it with a human life? And what would a society who was willing to make that transaction look like? Would you really want to live in that kind of a world?

Celebrities have always spoken out on public policy matters, but Gates is more than an icon, he is a wealthy icon who can financially influence public policy decisions. In American society, few are admired more than those who are financially successful. We would do well to listen to Jesus' letter to the church in Laodicea.

"You say, 'I am rich; I have acquired wealth and do not need a thing.' But you do not realize that you are wretched, pitiful, poor, blind and naked. I counsel you to buy from me gold refined in the fire, so you can become rich; and white clothes to wear, so you can cover your shameful nakedness; and salve to put on your eyes, so you can see." - Revelation 3:17-18

Mother Teresa plainly challenged the idea that life and death decisions can be carried out based on financial considerations. She said, "It is a poverty to decide that a child must die so that you may live as you wish."

Followers of Christ have an obligation to challenge the idea that any life can be traded for financial or social gain. If the people of God remain silent on this issue, the deaths of some people will be accelerated so that others can take benefit financially. Some lives will be deemed "worth-less" so that our tax burden can be reduced. Other lives will be deemed "worth-more" so that politicians can gain and maintain political power. We must act. We must pray.

Pray for those who make social policy. Pray for financial power-players like Bill Gates. Speak out wherever you find this idea. Stand up for those whose lives are jeopardized by policies that trade human lives for financial or social advancement.

No matter how ridiculous this idea sounded yesterday, it may be public policy tomorrow. The structure is already in place, the battle is now in the arena of public opinion. The choice is yours. Choose well.

You can find me on FACEBOOK at my Facebook Page (http://www.new.facebook.com/profile.php?id=504321719). Here's a link to my Flickr.com Page (http://www.flickr.com/photos/curtisferrell/) Thanks for reading!

There Is No Such Thing As a Free Dog

There is no such thing as a free dog. Our family discovered that three years ago. We received a curly-haired, black bundle of joy called Teddy as a Christmas gift - absolutely free . . . or so we thought. Three years later, he has become the beloved beta-male of the Ferrell pack, but he has come with a price.

We feed him and take him to the vet. We purchase flea, tick, and heartworm medicine monthly. We purchased a cage for use while he was house trained and a series of ceramic bowls for him to sleep in. I don't know why he liked sleeping in ceramic bowls, but every few weeks he grew out of the old bowl and needed a larger one.

Eventually he grew out of his small cage and we purchased a bigger one. Now he sleeps on top of it and dreams of being Snoopy chasing down the Red Barron! Add up all of the toys, snacks, food, medicine, collars and leashes, and we could put a good down payment on my daughters' college education. There is no such thing as a free dog.

In addition, we have lost some of our freedom as a family. When the 'pack' travels and stops at the Speedway or Wal-Mart, we can't all go inside; someone says behind with Teddy. When we travel without Teddy, we find someone to take care of him while we are gone. We cannot go too far away or for too long, because Teddy must be cared for. We can no longer play card games on the living room floor because Teddy lays down on the discard pile. He just wants to be the center of attention.

While I dearly love our little fuzz ball, if we had known the expense and the loss of certain freedoms we may have thought longer before accepting the 'free Christmas gift.' We may have recalled the words of Christ, "Suppose one of you wants to build a tower. Will he not first sit down and estimate the cost to see if he has enough money to complete it?"

Unfortunately, our nation seems to have made the same mistake 'the Ferrell pack' did, only on a grander scale. The idea of universal health care is wonderfully exciting! No more pain, no more sickness, no doctors performing unnecessary tonsillectomies in order to buy a new yacht; or so the rumor goes in Washington. But have we counted the cost? Do we have the money to pay for this 'free gift?' Have we listened to sound advice from scripture?

Scripture teaches that a blessed nation "lends to many nations but will borrow from none." How does that square with our position as a nation? Scripture says, "It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm, then, and do not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of slavery." Yet we have clearly given up our freedom of choice in exchange for the illusion of security. We are advised to "defend the cause of the weak and fatherless," yet we have affirmed legislation that will provide funding for abortions, unaffected by any Executive Order.

Over just a handful of decades the church has accepted the idea, an idea that was foreign to the founders of this great nation, that faith has no place in the public square. And Christians, in particular, cannot and should not try to influence political thought. God save us from our own ignorance! There is no such thing as a free dog, and there is no such thing as free health care. Freedom itself isn't free; it was given to us by our Creator and defended with the blood of hundreds of thousands of men and women who laid down their lives so that we could experience freedom.

If the events of the past few weeks stand unchallenged, we may come to love and appreciate our new-found security. But at what price? We have exchanged the gift from our Creator for the gift from our government. We have exchanged our freedom for security. But at what cost?

There is no such thing as a free dog.

Questions or comments?
Write curt@smdcog.org

You can find me on FACEBOOK at my Facebook Page (http://www.new.facebook.com/profile.php?id=504321719).

Here's a link to my Flickr.com Page (http://www.flickr.com/photos/curtisferrell/)

Thanks for reading!

An American Journal In the 21st Century - Thursday, January 14, 2010

Thursday, January 14, 2010 - A new foundation Is being laid for at New America. Those who truly understand this new foundation have hidden it in the 2000-plus pages of the Health Care bill being re-written in Washington D.C. Here's something you need to know about that new foundation.

The President's first choice for Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) was former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle. After losing his re-election bid in 2004, Mr. Daschle wrote a book about his view of the condition of healthcare in America and his desire to see it improved. The book is titled "Critical: What We Can Do About the Health-Care Crisis".

In the book, Daschle argues for a single-payer (government controlled) healthcare system. Daschle concedes that pushing for a single-payer system in the United States would be politically problematic and that it would indeed result in socialized medicine. On March 3, 2008 Daschle said in a Huffington Post article, "I have proposed a Federal Health Board that would be a foundation from which we could address all" healthcare problems.

About a year ago, Tom Daschle had to remove his name from consideration for the HHS post because of reports of inappropriate financial dealings and tax issues. The President then selected Kathleen Sebelius to head the HHS, but the administration was still committed to the blueprint found in Tom Daschle's book - a single-payer system with a Federal Health Board that controls it all.

In the current House Bill H.R. 3962, Section 241 (a) it reads: "There is hereby established, as an independent agency in the executive branch of the Government, a Health Choices Administration". The newly created Health Choices Administration is responsible for "the establishment of qualified health benefits plan standards under this title, including the enforcement of such standards".

This is the "foundation" that Tom Daschle was talking about. In his book, Daschle states that this board should be modeled after other nations like Great Britain. "In Great Britain, for example, the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE), which is part of the National Health Service (NHS), is the single entity responsible for providing guidance on the use of new and existing drugs, treatments, and procedures." So how does it work in Great Britain?

Let's look at the explanation found on the website for the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE):

With the rapid advances in modern medicine, most people accept that no publicly funded healthcare system, including the NHS, can possibly pay for every new medical treatment which becomes available. The enormous costs involved mean that choices have to be made.

It makes sense to focus on treatments that improve the quality and/or length of someone’s life and, at the same time, are an effective use of NHS resources . . .

To ensure our judgments are fair, we use a standard and internationally recognized method to compare different drugs and measure their clinical effectiveness: the quality-adjusted life years measurement (the ‘QALY’) . . .

A QALY gives an idea of how many extra months or years of life of a reasonable quality a person might gain as a result of treatment (particularly important when considering treatments for chronic conditions) . . .

Generally, however, if a treatment costs more than [$32,290 to $48,435] per QALY, then it would not be considered cost effective.

In other words, medical treatment under the proposed healthcare system will come down to a mathematical equation based on cost effectiveness and an arbitrary judgment on your anticipated quality of life and how many years you have left.

Why should you care?

Regardless of what the "talking-heads" say on television, the final decision on your health care choices will be made by the Health Choices Administration. That decision will be a cost-based decision (i.e. is it worth the cost for the United States Government to approve payment for this treatment?). The question for you is, is the proposed healthcare system worth giving up your freedom to make your own health care choices?

What can you do? Here are four ideas. If you have more ideas, please send them to me so that I can pass them along in future journal entries.

1. You can write or call the offices of your Senators and Congressmen and Congresswomen. Ask them to explain the Health Choices Administration and on what basis, this newly created government agency will be making decisions for you.

And don't stop with just one phone call and one letter or email. Contact your representatives weekly or twice a month. At the very least, your representative will know that you are watching.

2. You can pass this journal entry on. It is the first of many. Hopefully it will educate and stimulate a good and noble people to action; the very same people described in the constitution as "We the People . . ." You are free to make copies and distribute them by hand or 'snail-mail.' Please make sure that the last paragraph of this journal is included with your copies so that individuals can contact me with comments or questions.

If you forward this in e-mail form, please remove the "FW:" from the subject line. Many people delete Email Forwards without even opening them up. Also, take the time to e-mail it to one or two individuals at a time. You are encouraged to send this to everyone in your contact list, but many spam filters block emails that contain too many addresses in the "To:" box.

3. Organize a trip to your representative's office (local or in Washington D.C.). By carpooling you can share the expense while making a stronger impact by arriving in greater numbers. By the way, if you haven't done so already, you should make at least one trip to D.C. in your lifetime. Go to the memorials; read the inscriptions on the walls; examine the statues and paintings. You will discover a strong Godly heritage, clearly on display and quite possibly forgotten by your representative.

4. If you are a person of faith, pray. Pray fervently for your nation and for her leaders. Pray daily or hourly. Pray for a good and noble people to wake up and take action. Pray also for those who wish to reshape America in a Progressive image - pray for their safety and protection, but pray that their efforts will be thwarted.

My name is Curtis Ferrell, and this is An American Journal In The 21^st Century. You can find additional journal entries at http://clfnotes.blogspot.com. You can contact me at American_Journal@sbcglobal.net. If you do not wish to receive these journal postings, please email me so that I can remove you from my contact list or click here: Remove

You can find me on FACEBOOK at my Facebook Page (http://www.new.facebook.com/profile.php?id=504321719).

Here's a link to my Flickr.com Page (http://www.flickr.com/photos/curtisferrell/)

Thanks for reading!

On Divisions In The Church

Courier-Times Christian Perspectives Article for 11/14/09

Three weeks ago a brother in Christ took issue with these words that I wrote the week previous: "The Bible speaks very clearly about the sanctity of life; about our responsibility to the poor, the orphaned and the widow; about God's view of homosexual behavior."

I try to follow the guidance of C.S. Lewis, who stated in Mere Christianity, "Our divisions should never be discussed except in the presence of those who have already come to believe that there is one God and that Jesus Christ is His only Son." But I would like to take this opportunity to discuss WHY there are divisions in the church, and divisions with peoples of other faith systems.

A friend of mine, and national speaker for women and youth events, Lori Salierno, says that there are three general areas of belief in the church: standards, convictions, and preferences. For example, divisions in the church about the style of worship are preference differences. Scripture does not speak directly to these issues.

Divisions among believers about the day for worship, the appropriate age for baptism, the manner of baptism (i.e. sprinkling or dunking), and women in ministry are based on conviction. In other words, we believe the Spirit of God has convicted us that "this" way is the way God wants "us" to behave. We don't deny that other Christians have a different understanding. We don't call them non-Christian, or believe that they are sinning. However, if we act in a way, different than the way that God has convicted us to follow, we would be committing an act of sin.

Finally, standards are truths that scripture declares are true for all people, for all times. If someone opposes a standard, the bible calls those actions "sin". The church doesn't label it a sin; individuals don't label it a sin; it is the bible that labels those actions as sins.

While there are some Christ-followers that will identify as standards, the things that I identify as preferences and convictions, most believers will acknowledge these three general areas of belief in the church.

In the late 1960's, intellectuals began toying with an idea called "deconstruction". This idea states that you cannot know what a writer "actually" meant, so you, the reader, must deconstruct what is written and decide for yourself what you think the author meant. In other words, you re-construct what is written in the way that you think it should be read. Actually, the first deconstrucionalist was the serpent in the garden, "That's not what God really meant; you won't surely die."

Armed with this new tool, people have been deconstructing documents for over 40 years and re-constructing them according to their own preference.

They deconstructed the First Amendment to the Constitution which reads: 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. "Surely freedom of speech doesn't mean ALL forms for speech." As a result we have a new type of crime: Hate speech. Additionally, religious expression is being restrained by public law on several fronts.

They deconstructed the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. "Surely they didn't understand that we would need National Health Care." As a result, we are well on our way to a government-run health care system; a power that was not enumerated in the Constitution.

There are also those who deconstruct scripture. Where scripture is clear but uncomfortable, some say, "That's not what God REALLY meant." Sadly, this is where some divisions among believers occur in the area of standards. In past generations this re-construction of scripture was called heresy. Now we timidly say, "That's your understanding of truth; not mine."

As to areas of agreement, my brother is correct in saying that what brings us together is far more important than the things that separate us. But that is also true of my Jewish and Muslim friends. These faith systems, as well as Christianity, all count the Hebrew Scriptures in the Old Testament as holy scripture. There are many areas in which we can all agree. But the areas that divide us are significant.

For example, the Jewish faith does not accept every scripture we accept (i.e. The New Testament). In the other instance, the Muslim faith accepts, as scripture, documents we cannot accept (i.e. The Koran). Interestingly, they are both battling attacks by those who wish to deconstruct their holy scriptures.

This week we celebrated the veterans that have served this country by fighting for and defending freedom in all of its forms. Many of them died for the truths that we find in the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights. They didn't worry about what the Founders of this nation "really" thought. They clearly understood what was at stake and what the cost could be. They fought for freedom. All gave some; some gave all.

Deconstruction has done damage to the fabric of America and has resulted in the loss of some of the freedoms they fought and died for. Deconstruction has resulted in the creation of an expanded hate crimes law. Someday, we will be reading the report of an individual being charged under this new law for simply speaking his or her mind and defending biblical truth. It could be your pastor. It could be me. It could be you. We were warned and failed to do enough to defend the right to freedom of speech. Someday, someone will have to fight to win it back.

Deconstruction is doing damage to the unity of the church; the unity of all believers who claim to follow Christ. If we begin throwing out the passages of scripture that make us uncomfortable, soon we will have little left that we can call scripture; little left that unites us. Fortunately, scripture defends itself very well, if we have faith to believe what it says.

There is another truth that is clearly spelled out in Scripture. Faith in Christ means more that simply acknowledging that He exists; it means being obedient to His Word. Those who wish to debate this truth will have their opportunity one day, face-to-face with the Author of Truth. Personally, my debate with scripture is done; the Word won.

Questions or comments? Write curt@smdcog.org


You can find more at my Facebook Page (http://www.new.facebook.com/profile.php?id=504321719).

Also at my Flickr.com Page (http://www.flickr.com/photos/curtisferrell/)

Thanks for reading!

Why Does The Health Care Debate Confuse Us?

Courier-Times Christian Perspectives Article for 10-10-09

Jesus said, "I am sending you out like sheep among wolves. Therefore be as shrewd as snakes and as innocent as doves." That's easier said than done.

We are in the midst of a national debate regarding health care: who will pay, what will it cost, what services will be available, how many will be covered, how will it affect my ability to choose? These questions are difficult enough to get our minds around, especially when the numbers being used are in the billions and trillions. But the debate has now been thrown in the moral arena.

Individuals like Jim Wallis, a Washington based moral activist, and even the President himself have suggested that it would be immoral NOT to support the health care policies that are being proposed today. Others, like Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh, say that the health care proposals in congress are immoral and downright evil. So how do we, as Christ-followers, cut through all the fog of politics and moralizing to find the answers?

Let me suggest that we spend more time in the Word of God and more time in prayer. The decisions made in the next few months will have far reaching implications for decades to come. Scripture says that if any of us lack wisdom we should ask God for it, and He will give it to us. But what else does scripture say?

The Apostle Paul told the church at Corinth that we should give what we have decided in our heart to give, "not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver." But in his letter to the Christ-followers in Rome, Paul said, "Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God . . . Give everyone what you owe him: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor."

In the same way, the Apostle Peter wrote, "Submit yourselves for the Lord's sake to every authority instituted among men: whether to the king, as the supreme authority, or to governors, who are sent by him to punish those who do wrong and to commend those who do right." This suggest that a primary role for the government is to maintain order and punish evil-doers. But in the Old Testament we see that when Joseph was in power in Egypt he used that authority to secure grain for the coming famine so that the government could feed the people that otherwise would have starved.

A shrewd follower of Christ will also consider history. Part of the confusion we are dealing with stems from the fact that we are the first government in history to be "of the People, by the People, and for the People". Even though it doesn't feel like it all the time, WE are the Government; WE make the decisions; WE make the call. What is our responsibility, as a government, to the People?

We are also members of the church. What is our responsibility, as a church, to "the People"? History again shows is that time and time again the church has relinquished its role as caregiver and allowed the government to fill that vacuum. Who built the first hospitals? The church. Who built the first schools? The church. Who cared for orphans and widows and provided adoption services? Initially it was the church. But over the years we have allowed the government to assume those duties.

As individuals we are called to love our neighbor as ourselves. What is our responsibility, as individuals, to "the People"? Scripture clearly teaches that we are to give to the poor, care for the ill, visit those in prison, feed the hungry, and clothe the naked. Are we as Christ-followers still doing this, or are we expecting other people to fill the vacuum that we've created?

I think, if we are honest with ourselves, we will see that the reason we are struggling with the current health care issues is because we don't want to examine our own moral failures, as individuals and as the church. We understand that there is a need; a moral requirement that we care for those who are ill. We also understand that the primary role of government is not to care for the sick. That is not even the secondary or third or fourth role of the government. So we are stuck because we are ignoring the fact that, in most instances, the church has failed to care for the sick. And we don't want to admit that, in many instances, we as individuals have failed to care for the sick.

Maybe if we spent more time in prayer and more time in the study of scripture we would discover God's plan for our society. Maybe we would better understand God's definition of freedom, found in the book of Galatians. "You, my brothers, were called to be free. But do not use your freedom to indulge the sinful nature; rather, serve one another in love. The entire law is summed up in a single command: Love your neighbor as yourself."

Brothers and sisters in Christ, we have a choice to make. Will we live free and love our neighbor in tangible ways, or will we use our freedom to indulge in the things that please us and, as a result, lose more of our freedoms as we are bound by the debt that we owe? Will we as churches stop simply going to church and actually BE the church? The choice is ours; we must choose well. If we fail to choose well we will likely hear these words: For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.


You can find pictures at my Facebook Page (http://www.new.facebook.com/profile.php?id=504321719).

They are also posted at my Flickr.com Page (http://www.flickr.com/photos/curtisferrell/)

Thanks for reading!

The REAL Danger of H.R. 3200

During the Trojan War between the forces of Greece and Troy a tale of cunning strategy is told. After a long, ineffective siege on the city of Troy, the Greek army built a large empty horse and left it as a gift to the people of Troy. The priest, Laocoön, wanted to warn the city of Troy but was strangled by the henchmen of Athena. The King's daughter, Cassandra, warned that the horse would be the downfall of Tory. Nobody listened to the warnings. We all know what happened as a result.

Eerily, there are many similarities between this tale and the current health care reform bill in the House (HR 3200).

I have tried to digest HR 3200. I have scanned the entire document and then I went back to study it (in my spare time). I've only gotten through Title 1, Subtitle E but I am beginning to see why so many people are having a hard time describing the details of this bill.

The threat to the free-market form of health care that we have now, and the real possibility of creating a single-payer system is certainly something to be concerned with. But other than the government entering the game as a major health care financier, which is really a philosophical difference in the political arena, there are no policy initiatives in this bill. HR 3200 is simply the establishment of a structure; an empty shell. Advocates can only tell us what they "hope" the bill will do, and opponents can only say what we "fear" it will do. But this is exactly where the real danger lies.

Like the Trojan horse, this empty shell will be filled with people. Most of the people filling this horse will be appointed by whoever controls the White House in any given year. These individuals will be the ones defining what Essential Benefits are and, as a result, which medical procedures are mandated in any give medical situation. This, in turn, will determine which procedures are paid for by federal tax dollars.

Who will this administration pick to fill this horse? People like Tom Daschle, Kathleen Sebelius, Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, and John Holdren. These will be the policy makers for the current administration. The policies that these individuals champion are rationed health care, quality-of-life decision making, and unrestricted abortions even late in the pregnancy. These will be the frontline policy initiatives, but what policy ideas will next emerge from our Trojan horse? Genetic engineering, genetic determination of usefulness to society, population control, and diversity-weighted health care decisions have all been floated, if not promoted, by individuals in this likely pool of candidates. Who knows what else lurks inside this empty shell.

It is possible that the Athena's of today will strangle out the warnings of modern-day Laocoöns. And our fellow citizens may not listen to the warnings of the sons and daughters of the king. But the reality is that, after a long ineffective siege, a Trojan Horse has been presented to the city of Washington. We would be foolish not to learn from the lessons of history and fable.


Thanks for reading!