More on health care

A few more thoughts about the Supreme Court ruling on the Affordable Care Act:

This gentleman called in to Diane Rehm's Friday News Roundup yesterday to describe the difficulty of obtaining health insurance under the present system and why the Affordable Care Act offers hope. His story is touching and compelling and the core issue our Senators and Representatives should be solving.


This family's story isn't the only example.

A colleague is getting divorced and is concerned that his soon-to-be-former wife won't be able to get health insurance. She doesn't work and likely has what the insurance companies would consider a pre-existing condition.

I recently explored forming my own consulting company and getting health insurance for my family. The state's major insurance company said they would not underwrite my daughter until 10 years past her last surgery.

Those against Obamacare seem largely focused on the supposed government takeover of the health insurance industry — such claims seem hyperbole to me — and what the government can and cannot tell citizens to do. I just wish they would be as passionate about the moral issue of ensuring access to health insurance for all Americans.

Supreme Court upholds the health care law

I was pretty sure the Supreme Court was going to strike down the Affordable Care Act, given the uproar about the provision or mandate requiring people to buy health insurance coverage. That the Court didn't and that Chief Justice John Roberts joined — nay wrote — the majority opinion brought tears to my eyes when I heard the breaking news yesterday morning.

We live in a politically polarized country, so it is not a surprise that those who oppose the health care law — dubbed Obamacare — immediately called for the law's repeal. House Majority Leader Eric Cantor promises a vote on July 11, when the House returns from recess. And House Majority Leader John Boehner is almost apoplectic in arguing that the only reasonable course is for the law to be "ripped out by its roots."



While it's far from perfect — can anything designed by committee be even close to perfect? — the Affordable Care Act is a positive step forward in successfully addressing the major health-care issue this country faces: access to health insurance. And it attempts to limit the rising cost of health care.

I think we need to give it a chance to work and then improve it. And I felt compelled to say so to my Republican Senator and Representative:

Congress passed the law. The President signed it. The Supreme Court upheld it. 

Now let us see how it works and then make improvements based upon experience – not hypothetical concerns or political ideology. 

To state that you want to repeal the law without offering a specific, comprehensive alternative is irresponsible, in my opinion. The Affordable Care Act, despite its shortcomings, provides a means for Americans to have health insurance without denied coverage due to preexisting conditions and the risk of rescission, with serious illness. To help address the increasing cost of medical care, the law contains several provisions, including emphasizing preventative care and limiting the amount insurance companies can spend on administration and marketing. 

Rather than hurting economic growth, I believe ready access to health care that is not tied to employment will actually stimulate entrepreneurial activity, new business creation, and job growth. 

It’s a travesty that America is the only developed nation without universal access to health insurance. I believe we have a moral obligation as a country to solve that problem – which the free market has been unable to do on its own. 

So let’s suspend the rhetoric and give the law a fair chance to work.

Read the Supreme Court's full ruling here.

The role of management

I like this blog post on the role of management by Joel Spolsky, author of the blog Joel on Software and the CEO of Stack. I like it because Joel's inverted pyramid reinforces my idea of servant leadership.

In my view, the role of the leader is to articulate the vision, recruit a talented team that is passionate about achieving the vision, and then help the team surmount the barriers on their quest for the vision.

Leadership is not about power and feeding the ego. Leaders approach their role with humility. As stated in The Tao of Leadership,

Enlightened leadership is service, not selfishness.

Materialistic individualism is undoing us

I recently read Michael Lewis' enlightening and sobering article California and Bust in the November issue of Vanity Fair. He explores the financial crisis facing many communities, triggered as the Federal and state governments "solve" their financial woes by cutting expenditures and leaving the shortfall with the cities and towns. While this isn't fair, the cities and towns are not blameless, having made unsustainable financial commitments to their public sector employees over the decades.

Lewis portrays dire situations in San Jose and Vallejo, California, that are similar to the events in Wisconsin and Ohio and Rhode Island and Alabama and who knows how many other states and cities. The financial calamity began with the implosion of the housing bubble that froze the liquidity of the capital markets and created record and prolonged unemployment. Tax revenues are down while the costs of the social safety net are up, yielding unconstitutional deficits for the states and municipalities.

To eliminate deficits, you either cut expenditures, raise taxes on those who still have revenue to contribute, or blend the two. This dichotomy has become the ideological argument cementing the gridlock in Congress.

Looking beyond the political drama that fills the cable programs, Lewis points to the deeper cultural and moral issue exposed by the recession:

Americans knew exactly what they wanted to do, from the top of the society to the bottom. They’d been conditioned to grab as much as they could, without thinking about the long-term consequences. Afterward, the people on Wall Street would privately bemoan the low morals of the American people who walked away from their subprime loans, and the American people would express outrage at the Wall Street people who paid themselves a fortune to design the bad loans.

During my lifetime, I've observed that the rugged individualism that forged America has shifted to a materialistic individualism, exemplified by the sardonic bumper sticker: He who dies with the most toys wins. (Contrast that with Jesus' admonition: It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God. Matthew 19:23-24.)

The purpose of life in our consumer culture seems to be to amass as much wealth as possible and use it to acquire as much as we can. In addition to breeding entitlement and narcissism, materialistic individualism leads to conflict and traumatic pain when the economic system can no longer support the largess.

So airlines go bankrupt, and pilots lose their pensions. Retiree health care costs make the price of a new car noncompetitive  Pensions and benefits for public sector employees command an unsustainable share of tax revenues. Health insurance co-pays and deductibles rise year after year.

Amid the frustration and fear of an impending train wreck, the Tea Party emerged, finding government the root of the problem. Occupy Wall Street blames the wealthiest Americans — the so-called 1%. The rights of collective bargaining and tenure for teachers are challenged.  Economists argue for increasing the retirement age, an idea no politician will endorse.

These events are the collective result of our individual beliefs and actions. We are too focused on our personal desires, not considering the larger society we live in and unwilling to sacrifice our interests for the common good. We keep reaching for more and feeling justified — entitled — to do so. As Michael Lewis aptly diagnoses, the problem isn't just them, it's us.

The purpose of a business

“We should think of revenue as the way people think of breathing; it’s necessary for life but it’s not the purpose of life.” — Twitter CEO Dick Costolo

Amen.

Making money is not the purpose of a business. Making a profit is necessary to sustain the enterprise, to reinvest in the future and provide a return to those who have invested the capital to launch it. But it's not the raison d'etre, the vision of the founders.

Too many companies forget this along the way.

A meteorological journal of the mind

I'm listening to a fascinating audio course on the Transcendentalist Movement and the role it played in American history. The movement is inextricably linked to Ralph Waldo Emerson and Henry David Thoreau, so the course focuses on their lives, world views, and the important roles they played.

Both Emerson and Thoreau wrote journals where they noted their observations of the world and developed the thoughts and ideas that later took form in their essays and books.

I like their characterization of these diaries as meteorological journals of the mind. Seems an apt description for this blog.

Debt Ceiling drama continues

Despite meetings, proposals, votes, and lots of talk behind closed doors and before TV cameras during the past week, the gap seems to have widened between the President and the Republicans in the House—even between the President and his own party. Yesterday, the debt ceiling talks dramatically fell apart, apparently prompted by Speaker Boehner and punctuated by dueling press conferences.

The President said his proposal was “extraordinarily fair” and justified his position, in part, by the heat from his fellow Democrats and interest groups, protesting the proposed cuts in entitlement programs. President Obama testily asked if the Republicans would agree to anything. Speaker Boehner claimed the President “moved the goal posts” by asking for $400-billion more revenue late in the discussions, what Republicans say is a tax increase and is simply not negotiable.

The President demanded that the leaders of the House and Senate meet with him at the White House this morning. He expects them to advise how they intend to raise the debt ceiling.

Depressing.

While we definitely need to reduce our escalating debt, I don't believe it should be done solely by cutting expenditures. Reasonable increases in revenue, either by reducing or eliminating tax deductions or increasing certain taxes, should be part of the strategy. The Republican House is obstructing such a balanced resolution to adhere to their pledge of no new taxes.

Their position reminds me of the aphorism:

Don't let your principles keep you from doing the right thing.

Unfortunately, I think the principle of lower taxes has become a rigid ideology, and I'm afraid the country is going to suffer.

I expressed my concerns via a couple of Twitter posts earlier today.

Here's that last paragraph from President Lincoln's first inaugural address:

We are not enemies, but friends. We must not be enemies. Though passion may have strained it must not break our bonds of affection. The mystic chords of memory, stretching from every battlefield and patriot grave to every living heart and hearthstone all over this broad land, will yet swell the chorus of the Union, when again touched, as surely they will be, by the better angels of our nature.

If I were in Washington today, I would go by the Lincoln Memorial to see if there are any tears in his eyes.

Debt Limit

So far politics trumps statesmanship, as the Republican-controlled House doesn't appear willing to compromise with the President in finding a mutually acceptable path to raising the debt ceiling.

Despite admonitions from credit rating agencies and China, everyone's sights seem focused on the 2012 election, rather than defining the best fiscal path for the country.

My usual optimism is eroding.

Nonetheless, to do what I can to influence the situation and relieve my increasing anxiety and frustration, I put fingers to keyboard (the modern version of pen to paper) and sent the following to Eric Cantor (the pivotal figure in the House), Speaker John Boehner, New Hampshire Representative Charles Bass, and New Hampshire Senator Kelly Ayotte:

I write to urge you to seek a compromise that will 1) allow the debt ceiling to be raised before the August 2 deadline and 2) not enable further erosion in the confidence of the U.S. Government. We already have the basis for a solution in the recommendations of the Bowles-Simpson commission.

To believe the debt can be comprehensively reduced by simply cutting spending and not raising additional revenue strikes me as ludicrous and an unreasoned adherence to ideology. I also find it somewhat hypocritical that the Republicans are pushing so stridently for cuts in spending, when the debt rose from $5.8-trillion at the end of FY2001 to $10.0-trillion at the end of FY2008, under a Republican President and when the Republicans substantially controlled Congress.

Please don't play politics. Do focus on the best outcome for the American people.

Why I hate politics - one more example

A scene from the latest political theater:

Republicans and Democrats are battling over the budget. Republicans want to cut spending to trim the deficit and to align the government's policies with their own philosophies. Among the lightning rods: Planned Parenthood, which receives some $360-million from government grants and contracts (per Planned Parenthood's 2008-2009 annual report) and provides abortions (although, by law, federal funding cannot be used to provide abortions, so the federal dollars are used in other areas).

Jon Kyl, U.S. Senator from Arizona, made the following statement on the floor of the Senate:

If you want an abortion, you go to Planned Parenthood. And that's well over 90% of what Planned Parenthood does.

However, Planned Parenthood's 2008-2009 annual report shows only 3% of its services are abortions (see pie chart).

When the discrepancy was pointed out to Senator Kyl's office, they advised that the 90% figure was “not intended to be a factual statement.”

Just what is that supposed to mean? If we were arguing over a few percentage points — Kyl said 95% and the number was actually 91% — then Kyl's argument is valid. But the difference is between the implications of totality and minimal. Kyl's number is not even in the ballpark.

To not issue a substantive correction reeks of politics and a lack of integrity, so much so that I felt compelled to submit the following message to Senator Kyl's web page:

Senator Kyl,

Shame on you for grossly misrepresenting Planned Parenthood's services and then having the audacity to defer any correction by stating that your statement was not intended to be factual.

While I respect (although disagree with) your opposition to abortion and Planned Parenthood, your tactics reflect a disappointing lack of integrity — especially considering you are a United States Senator.

Respectfully,

Gary Lerude

Fortunately, in this 24x7 cable news and Internet age, Kyl's misleading statement and clumsy parry have generated considerable commentary and satire (see below). Bowing to the pressure, Kyl has revised his remarks in the official public record. No apology, but the “well over 90%” phrase is long gone.

Religion - a Force for Good?

Question

"Do you think, if religion were extinct, the world would be more or less loving?" asked Rev. Meg, Senior Minister of The Church of the Larger Fellowship

My Answer

I think religion can be a force for good in the world. However, religious institutions, like all institutions, can become self-righteous and, without limits to their power and self-interest, betray the ideals at the nucleus of their formation.

Move to repeal same-sex marriage in New Hampshire

Two New Hampshire legislators, David Bates and Leo Pepino, have each introduced a bill to repeal the legality of same-sex marriage in the state, barely a year after it became legal. HB 437 and HB 443 are now with the House Judiciary Committee, which has scheduled a public hearing on both for February 17.

Fortunately, it's easy to send an e-mail to the committee members, which I did, expressing my opinion and recommendation:

I write to oppose HB437 and HB443 and any other proposed legislation intended to repeal same-sex marriage in New Hampshire.

Homosexuality exists and is not a life-style choice. As such, gay and lesbian couples deserve the same freedom to marry as heterosexual couples. This is a moral right that is consistent with the ideals of our nation and state, as articulated in the Declaration of Independence and New Hampshire's own motto.

That society has not recognized same-sex marriage until now is no justification for maintaining an ancient and outdated tradition. After all, the same argument was made for preserving slavery and disenfranchised women. Society must continue to evolve, ever widening the circle of freedom and justice to include all people.

As a heterosexual who has been married for over 20 years, I don't see same-sex marriage as any threat to my marriage, nor to the institution of marriage.

I have been heartened that my children's generation regards sexual orientation like hair color: no big deal and certainly not the basis for bestowing society's rights and privileges. And I fervently hope that their legislators will exhibit the same enlightened view.

Senate joins House to repeal Don't Ask, Don't Tell

In what seemed an unlikely outcome until just days ago, the Senate this afternoon passed a repeal of the Don't Ask Don't Tell policy, restricting "known" gays and lesbians from serving in the military. As the House previously approved the change in policy, the legislation immediately goes to the President for quick signing and then implementation. Thankfully, 8 Republicans joined 57 Democrats to approve the bill, 65 to 31.

As expected, New Hampshire (NH) Senator Jeanne Shaheen (Democrat) voted in favor of repeal. Retiring NH Senator Judd Gregg was apparently absent or did not vote. Unfortunate, as this was an opportunity to end his Senate career on a high note, as I wrote in an e-mail to him, sent earlier in the day:

Senator Gregg,

I hope you will enhance your legacy as a Senator by voting to repeal "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" (DADT).

As you know, gays and lesbians are serving honorably—and dying—in our armed forces, defending the American principles of freedom and justice. Yet we don't provide them with the same freedom and justice, instead insisting that they keep their sexuality secret and live without the integrity of being who they are.

Defense Secretary Gates and Admiral Mullen support repeal of DADT. The Pentagon has thoughtfully studied repeal, and Secretary Gates has clearly stated that repeal will mean a considered transition to the new policy.

If DADT comes before the Senate before you retire, I hope you will cast a vote supporting our gay and lesbian service men and women. That's far more important to your legacy as a Senator, to being a compassionate human being, than following the Republican policy line.

The Federal debt and extension of the Bush tax cuts

Republicans in Congress have refused to extend long-term unemployment benefits unless the $33-billion cost does not add to the Federal debt, meaning other programs are cut. To add interest to the debate, yesterday the government released the latest employment data, showing the unemployment rate rising from 9.6 to 9.8%.  WSJ report here.

In a parallel universe, the Republicans are holding to their position to extend the Bush-era tax cuts for all Americans, not just those earning under $250,000 per year as advocated by President Obama. The Christian Science Monitor calculates the cost of this tax break for the upper income earners at $68-billion per year.

Does this inconsistency seems hypocritical to you?

It sure seems that way to me — enough that I penned the following to send to Representative Boehner (House Majority Leader in the new Congress) and Senator McConnell (Senate Minority Leader):

On the one hand, you decry the defict and debt and say we cannot afford extending benefits for the unemployed — even with the unemployment rate rising. 

Yet you argue that tax cuts for the wealthiest in the nation should be extended -- $68-billion annually that would reduce the deficit or pay for the $33-billion extension of unemployment benefits. 

Your position sure seems hypocritical and pure politics, certainly not representing the best interests of our country.

Don't Ask, Don't Tell

Defense Secretary Robert Gates is recommending the repeal of the Clinton-era Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy restricting gays and lesbians who have come out from serving in the military. Read his statement to the Senate Armed Services Committee here.

Senator John McCain is opposing repeal, at least at this time, as noted in his opening statement at the same Senate committee hearing.

Frustrated by the Senator's position — perhaps a lightning rod for my impatience at the terribly slow progress in affirming gay and lesbian rights — I posted the following comment on Senator McCain's web site:

Senator McCain,

I am very disappointed by your position on "Don't Ask, Don't Tell."

You ask whether this is the appropriate time, whether repealing the current policy is premature.

I ask what the men and women of our armed forces are defending if not the rights of all of our citizens to fulfill their potentials — including those who are gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender.

Only over the recent span of my adult life have I seen this nation begin to recognize and affirm the rights of gays. I am thankful that my teenage children hold none of the biases and pejorative assumptions that were prevalent when I was their age.

I have faith that those in our services who have concerns will respond to the "better angels of our nature" with appropriate leadership and education.

Senator, I ask you to help provide that leadership and support Defense Secretary Gates' recommendation to repeal "Don't Ask, Don't Tell."

The Juan Williams affair

NPR terminated news analyst Juan Williams this week, after he appeared on Bill O'Reilly's program on Fox News and spoke of his fears seeing Muslims in airports.

I mean, look, Bill, I’m not a bigot. You know the kind of books I’ve written about the civil rights movement in this country. But when I get on the plane, I got to tell you, if I see people who are in Muslim garb and I think, you know, they are identifying themselves first and foremost as Muslims, I get worried. I get nervous.

These words sparked the controversy, yet if you watch the whole segment, I think you'll see that Juan Williams was also attempting to caution Bill O'Reilly from making sweeping generalizations about Muslims.



Surprisingly, Juan Williams' dismissal initiated a huge backlash against NPR. Not surprisingly, especially two weeks before the mid-term election, NPR's decision provided fodder for long-time critics who see the outlet as a voice for liberals. Beyond the predictable criticism, many were upset that NPR's move was an abrogation of Williams' right to free speech, particularly when characterized as not being politically correct.

There are many dimensions to this controversy, and I don't see either NPR or Juan Williams as clearly right or wrong. I am dismayed by the knee-jerk reactions and lack of thoughtful reflection to see the whole truth that both share pieces of. I don't have the time or energy to develop and articulate my views now, but I will share a posting I wrote for the NHPR web site:

Unfortunately, much of the criticism of NPR's termination of Juan Williams reflects the same knee-jerk reaction that NPR is accused of: lack of a thoughtful, measured, transparent response with the flexibility to shape the outcome through dialog and understanding.

The Williams issue raises legitimate questions that don't have easy answers:

Was it possible for Juan Williams to maintain credibility as a "balanced analyst" on NPR while he "editorialized" on Fox News?

More broadly, does the journalist's role of analyst or host of a news program restrict that individual's right to unfettered free speech? Could Walter Cronkite have maintained his credibility if he told us what he really felt about the stories he reported?

As a nation, how can we discuss our fears through a process that leads to learning and understanding, without having the conversation labeled racist or bigoted and abruptly terminated?

NPR is one organization that can help us address these questions, so we all learn and grow from the Juan Williams affair.

To those whose disappointment in NPR leads to the reponse to no longer fund public radio, I ask you to reconsider. Despite shortcomings, NPR is a vital journalistic voice in our democracy and needs to be supported and strengthened.

It's truly unfortunate that this issue has become a political football, and our society has lost the opportunity for the teaching moment.

For more background on the story:

• New York Times article on the termination
• NPR Ombudsman's comments on the dismissal
• Washington Post follow-up story on the termination and reaction

The evolution of journalism and media

Today's New York Times Sunday Book Review has an enlightening review of Alan Brinkley's biography of Henry Luce (The Publisher, Henry Luce and His American Century).

The story of Luce and his publications (Time, Life, Fortune) reflect the embodiment of journalism through much of the 20th century; these publications are — or were, in the case of Life — icons of my life.

Bill Keller, Executive Editor of the Times, concludes his review with a summary of the present state of journalism, media, and American society. I find it worthy of memorializing:

It would be a mistake to sentimentalize the previous century’s version of journalistic authority. But it is probably fair to say that the cacophony of today’s media — in which rumor and invective often outpace truth-testing, in which shouting heads drown out sober reflection, in which it is possible for people to feel fully informed without ever encountering an opinion that contradicts their prejudices — plays some role in the polarizing of our politics, the dysfunction of our political system and the increased cynicism of the American electorate.

Brainwashing or encouraging?

I was quite surprised at the outcry over President Obama's plan to speak to America's school children yesterday, commemorating the start of the school year.

Perhaps the strongest response came from the chairman of the Republican Party of Florida, Jim Greer, who issued a press release condemning the speech and the President's motives:

September 1, 2009

Greer Condemns Obama’s Attempt to Indoctrinate Students

Tallahassee – Republican Party of Florida Chairman Jim Greer today released the following statement condemning President Obama’s use of taxpayer dollars to indoctrinate America’s children to his socialist agenda.

"As the father of four children, I am absolutely appalled that taxpayer dollars are being used to spread President Obama’s socialist ideology. The idea that school children across our nation will be forced to watch the President justify his plans for government-run health care, banks, and automobile companies, increasing taxes on those who create jobs, and racking up more debt than any other President, is not only infuriating, but goes against beliefs of the majority of Americans, while bypassing American parents through an invasive abuse of power.

"While I support educating our children to respect both the office of the American President and the value of community service, I do not support using our children as tools to spread liberal propaganda. The address scheduled for September 8, 2009, does not allow for healthy debate on the President’s agenda, but rather obligates the youngest children in our public school system to agree with our President’s initiatives or be ostracized by their teachers and classmates.

"Public schools can’t teach children to speak out in support of the sanctity of human life or traditional marriage. President Obama and the Democrats wouldn’t dream of allowing prayer in school. Christmas Parties are now Holiday Parties. But, the Democrats have no problem going against the majority of American people and usurping the rights of parents by sending Pied Piper Obama into the American classroom.

"The Democrats have clearly lost the battle to maintain control of the message this summer, so now that school is back in session, President Obama has turned to American’s children to spread his liberal lies, indoctrinating American’s youngest children before they have a chance to decide for themselves.”

Hyperbole? Over the top? Seems so to me. However you can judge for yourself by watching the President's remarks.



Ironically, ABC News reported on Monday that Jim Greer had changed his opinion of the speech, calling it a "good speech" and one he would actually allow his own children to watch. However, he did not back down from his press release, claiming that his protest caused the President to change the speech and the lesson plan materials being sent to schools by the Department of Education.

I find it hard to believe this stuff actually happens.

More on health care comparisons

Continuing my research into the health-care systems of other countries, here are a few resources that provide additional information.

In a comment to yesterday's posting, Burns referred to an NPR Talk of the Nation program about Canada's health-care system. I searched the web site and believe this program is the one he was referring to.

I also found an interesting Wikipedia article that compares the Canadian and American systems.

Finally, this AP article shows the irony of Britons' views of their system, which is prone to criticism within the country — unless Americans are dissing it.

A Canadian's perspective of health care

Prompted by the health care debate in the U.S., I asked a family friend who lives in Canada about the Canadian system.

Canada and the UK are often the poster children of government-run health care. Critics cite these two to prove that "socialized medicine" delivers poor medical care, with rationed or limited access and long waits.

In an e-mail, I asked this family friend to speak of her family's experience with Canada's universal coverage. Here's her response, slightly edited to preserve anonymity. The italicized items are my additions to clarify meaning.

Hello Gary:

I am all for it. My husband and I pay a total of $96 a month to cover the two of us, and when we go into the doctor or hospital there is no bill coming later in the mail. We are not stopped from going into the hospital because everyone is required to have B.C. (British Columbia) medical or a medical from their employment which is very reasonable.

Dental (unless you have a plan with your employment) is not a requirement, although children whose parents have a lower income are able to receive dental care — which I might add would be a boon to a lot I see in the U.S. (sorry to be so blunt).

They did for awhile have a $5 or $10 fee for emergency use but ... have dropped that now.

We even see specialists without a fee.

I NEVER had had to worry about not being able to see a doctor or use the hospital, ever.

I know years ago my friend just about died in Redding (CA) when she was a little girl (appendicitis). Until her parents could prove they could pay, they (i.e., the hospital) would not look after her.

I believe that health care and education are the most important things a country has to provide for their people (of course food and choice of religion are a given).

I will concede that this is a single data point. Nonetheless, I think it's relevant. Additionally, when I was in Europe on a business trip in May, I had a fascinating dinner conversation about health care with two colleagues, one German and one British. Both were quite satisfied with their national health-care systems.

Perhaps a universal, single-payer system isn't the bogeyman that some make it out to be.

Update, Sunday, August 16

My friend sent me another e-mail, largely covering family items; however, she did include additional thoughts about Canada's healthcare system.

You will probably be amazed at the fact that Keifer Sutherland's grandfather, Tommy Douglas, was the creator of our medical system. He was a political party leader in Saskatchewan and went through very critical abuse by doctors, politicians, etc. over this, but he hung in there and got this benefit for all Canadians. We have lost some of it through abuse from immigrants and greed of politicians over the years, but it is still a good system.

We usually go to Yuma, Arizona each winter and do see the effects of your medical system. We always purchase extended medical so that we are covered while we are in the U.S. Our system will cover what they pay here, and the rest then is covered by our extended plan. It is not cheap.

The price of liberty

This Memorial Day was sunny and warm, the perfect occasion for a barbecue with neighbors and friends. Except for the parade downtown this morning and the day off from work, today seemed like just another weekend day.

That we could enjoy the day as we did, with hardly a care, is testimony to the men and women who have served the country, since before its inception, to help create and preserve our liberty. From their service — many losing their lives — we have the ironic privilege of taking our liberty for granted.

A statue outside the National Archives in Washington, DC, bears the inscription: Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty. A Google search reveals sources that attribute the quote to either John Philpot Curran (1750-1817) or Wendell Phillips (1811-1884).

The citation for Wendell Phillips contains the quotation in a speech he gave to the Massachusetts Anti-Slavery Society in Boston in 1852. His words seem as relevant today as they must have been in 1852:

Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty — power is ever stealing from the many to the few…. The hand entrusted with power becomes … the necessary enemy of the people. Only by continual oversight can the democrat in office be prevented from hardening into a despot: only by unintermitted Agitation can a people be kept sufficiently awake to principle not to let liberty be smothered in material prosperity.