sensible healthcare reform

Healthcare reform is called "complex". What makes it complex? For starters, there are multiple constituents, each with different needs and solutions. Then there are the multiple players, each of which have roles that are not agreed upon by society. BTW, this is called "healthcare reform" but it is really "sick patient payment or insurance reform". healthcare would include many elements of diet and exercise but it is what it is. Let's first look at the constituents and then lets look at the players.

Constituents
Sr citizens on Medicare

Poor citizens who have too few financial resources to be self sufficient in their healthcare choices.

Other citizens fall in several classes - those with high risk from pre-existing conditions, those with high risk because they do not belong to a risk pool, and everyone else

Players
Market based companies - these are the organizations who have a mission to provide care for ailing members of society in a way that they gain economic benefit.

Government - this is an agent of society that exists to meet needs in society when market based organizations cannot deliver their mission sufficiently to produce an acceptable return on capital.

Individuals - the consumers of healthcare services that initiate the use of the service.

Here's the plan -
1. Sr's on Medicare continue as is (approx 30% of pop)
2. Poor people (maybe 20%) have medicaid that is funded through block grants to States to apply as they feel they should for their citizens (this also creates competition between (States)
3. All other individuals obtain insurance as they choose from market providers. Market forces and other steps, such as eliminate govt mandates on coverage, competition across States, tort reform, and increase supply of medical professionals by govt sponsored scholarships, loans and grants, will lower overall costs resulting in more affordable insurance premiums.
4. States will use some medicaid funds to re-insure the market based suppliers for high risk clients of the market based insurance products that have conditions with the likelihood of unusual or catastrophic consequences. This allows Insurers to use the government funded capabilities to insure pre-existing conditions and keep their clients premiums lower. Private businesses can compete with the State to provide the re-insurance coverages.
5. Any citizen (not on Medicare or Medicaid) that does not have a sufficient risk pool from which to buy affordable insurance can subscribe to Medicaid for 5 years. The Medicaid premiums will be income and age tested just as insurers do in the regular market. Subscription is renewable in 5 year blocks at the choice of the client. The client can opt out of medicaid individual policy at any time they have opportunity for a more affordable option through a risk pool they can join.

The freeing of market based solutions for a majority of the population, the use of re-insurance practices to relieve insurers of high risks, and the govt participation in areas businesses can not cover profitably will allow each constituent and each player to best realize their needs and roles.

Feel free to pass this on to any politician who may wish to provide solutions rather than play power politics as usual. This is only a short blog post so I am sure when the lawyers get through it will be 100 pages of garbly goop :-)

"privileges and provisions"?

  

         


One of my themes recently has been that the difference between the core assumptions of the carnal mind and the Kingdom mind. I have set forth the idea (from Scripture) that our human nature (carnal) relies on transactions based on rights and rewards while our "born again" Spiritual nature simply abides in privileges and provisions. However, I get a lot of blank stares when I use the phrase "privileges and provisions" of the Heavenlies. I am not sure what the stumbling block of understanding is but it is!! Dallas Willard called it "The Divine Conspiracy" and sold a truck load of books. Paul opens Ephesians with it and produces many great Bible studies. But I use the phrase and somehow find the need to explain further what I mean.

So let me illustrate by using two different, but like examples, of what I mean by privileges and provisions. I was out walking Spot and I just thought about him for a bit. He abides in the provision and privileges of being Gail's pet. He doesn't chose what food he eats, she gives him what she knows to be the best for him. If he is sick, he may know he feels badly but he does nothing to provide care for his illness. Spot abides in the privileged of being Gail's pet. He totally trusts her for his well being. He can decide to run away or to sulk when he doesn't get his way, but nothing he does or does not do determines his privilege of being her pet. Everything that is good for Spot she provides willingly and without transacting with him. She chose him and he is her pet. She is sovereign but she is totally sold out in love to his well being.

Consider a new baby. This child did nothing to come into this world. He or she did not chose his/her parents. They chose the child. They are sovereign with full authority. The child abides in the family, the child does not transact or earn his or her meals, diaper changes or baths. The baby receives the full good will of the parents. The child abides in the privileges and provisions of his or her family.

Such it is with us Kingdom dwellers. We abide, not transact. Everything our soul needs is bestowed on us by the sovereign will of a gracious and good father. We do not rely on our rights or the rewards we can earn. We are blessed (fortunate) to receive the privileges we have as a child of the King and the provisions He has for us that give us life abundantly. This is one way to understand the Beatitudes. Following "blessed are," there is a provision (the meek, the poor in spirit, the pure in heart, etc) and the associated privilege ("for they shall inherit the earth," "for theirs is the Kingdom of Heaven," "fro they shall see God," etc.). 

Two "R" words denote core assumptions of our human nature - rights and rewards.

Two "P" words denote core assumptions of our divine nature - privileges and provisions.

"Be transformed by the renewing of your mind", which involves some pondering I think!!

yearning for "hygga"

Denmark is considered the country with the happiest people in the world according to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. The US failed to crack the top 10 for the fifth consecutive year. Life satisfaction was measure across 22 variables. After a healthy job market, the article reported that "feeling connected to one’s community is another factor in a country’s happiness. In all but one of the happiest countries, at least 90% of respondents reported having a quality support network that they could rely on in times of need." 

The Danish and Norwegian's have a word for this, "hygga", pronounced "hoo-ga". Hygga refers to "a form of everyday togetherness", "a pleasant and highly valued everyday experience of safety, equality, personal wholeness and a spontaneous social flow". Much has been written in the study of Scandinavian cultures about the value of "hygga". In recent times it is included as a rationale for the emotional health of more socialistic economies. This becomes a barrier for many thoughtful Americans since it leads them to associate "hygga" with advancing propaganda on socialism as a superior economic approach to capitalism. Conservative Americans, which include many evangelicals, wish to denounce "hygga" to protect and promote the Judeo-Christian work ethic,. Individualism was an unintended consequence of the Reformation. This is understandable since there is a strong link between the contribution of individualism to economic development and growing our standard of living. Thus, the benefits of capitalism are defended by American Christianity vigorously.

 So, what is your point prof? Is this just another biased, slanted argument to link socialism with happiness? Is this another poke at the greed factor of capitalism that eats away at happiness. After all, there are studies that fail to show a positive correlation between wealth and happiness.

Let's break away from this tired debate a moment and see if there is a valued place for "hygga" in the Western conservative evangelical narrative. Let's come at the question of "hygga" from a different perspective.

Jesus says, "I am the vine; you are the branches. Whoever abides in me and I in him, he it is that bears much fruit, for apart from me you can do nothing." That means "abide" must be important and quite essential to life in The Kingdom. While abide technically means "to remain or stay", could it practically mean "hygga"? Could the key to abundant life be found in a better understanding and a greater role of "hygga" in the life of a Western Christian?

If so, it may mean that economically and socially conservative evangelicals may have some work to do. While contingent trading may work well as an economical system, does it work best in relationships? Does our free market culture mask any real grasp of "abiding"? Can we effectively embrace individualism when it comes to the economy and switch completely to "hygga" when it comes to our relationships? While "earning our way" may result in greater "creature comforts", does it better "scratch the itches of our soul"? Does an obsession with trading distort our view of The Kingdom?

Maybe Western Christians live less satisfied than Scandinavian secularists because "hygga" is really more like the Kingdom than rugged individualism when it comes to relationships?

AFTER ALL, all truth is God's truth. Maybe other cultures have "abiding" better understood and normative than we do? While being a good trader is the best economic model, maybe "hygga", abiding rather than fair trade, is the best relationship model?

Certainly worth pondering .....        

The pathway to satisfaction

Remember this song, its a moldy-oldie and one of my favorites. Part of the appeal of this song is that it hits at one of life's basic yearnings, getting our needs met. This is especially true with close relationships like marriage. We are generally attracted to our mate initially because of the amazing way they meet our needs, but unfortunately we drift a part because they no longer do.

At the heart of the problem with satisfaction may be perspective. Let me illustrate. Suppose you read this tip on needs satisfaction. Does it sound kinda like the right path?

"Every relationship has basic needs, such as intimacy, security, and communication. However, each relationship is unique and each person has needs specific to him or her. Do you know your spouse’s needs? Is your spouse an extrovert or an introvert? Does your spouse enjoy a hilarious good time, or are they more comfortable in silence? It is very important to understand what your partner’s needs are so that you can be the one to meet them. It is difficult to be in a relationship in which your needs are not being met, so it is crucial to understand and fulfill the needs of your significant other. Of course, deep spiritual needs can only be met by a personal relationship with God, so that is not what we are describing here. For example, your wife may need to hear the words “I love you” verbalized often, because her father never told her that he loved her. Or, your husband may need you to initiate sex sometimes so that he feels like you want him physically. Wouldn’t you love to be the one your spouse runs to when they have needs? Become the one that fulfills them, and their love for you will double and triple."

You might think, "yeah, that sounds right, that would make for a good marriage." Or you may think, I try that but he or she doesn't do the same for me so I quit trying. Or there may be yet another response you have to the tip. The point is that this is not the ONLY way to view satisfaction in marriage. There is actually another view of satisfaction in relationships to consider. Suppose you read this tip.

It is typical in relationships for people to focus on getting their needs met by what their mate does for them. However, you probably have found that beyond some brief good moments, seeking happiness through your mate’s actions generally results in frustration and disappointment. So, why not try a more excellent way? Lasting satisfaction does not come from transactions you make with others.The real design for marriage suggests it is more about the privileges and provisions of the relationship than the rewards and rights you have from the relationship. Seeing the beauty found in being chosen by each other to love each other makes your relationship special, not futile. Its abiding in the union you share that meets your needs. Seeing your relationship as a privilege doesn't carry with it the stress from demanding your rights. Provisions are the blessings you each receive from graciously serving each other without expectations. Certainly, each of you must be sensitive and aware of your different “love languages”, but meeting each other’s needs should not be a chore or a duty you work hard at. You will “scratch the itches of each other’s soul” as your actions flow from a heart of mutual respect and admiration. Seeing your relationship as a special privilege with the provisions of being loved by your mate is how your satisfaction will double and triple.   

You may or may not agree this second path is best, but you have to admit it is different. The first view is based on assumptions that abundant life is about rights and rewards, satisfaction is transactional. The second is based on assumptions that abundant life is about privileges and provisions, satisfaction is in abiding.

b4 you have a view on needs satisfaction you have a b4worldview and your b4worldview is our business @ www.b4worldview.com

The Power of Primacy

"We're number one!" or "You are number one in my life!" are pretty significant statements to make. The first means we are better than everyone else and the second means a person is the most important person in your life. Oddly enough, just being better and being more important is not what ultimately drives how we feel, think and act. Being better and being important might be necessary to influence what we do, but it is NOT sufficient.



In the movie Rudy we see a young man dreaming to play football at Notre Dame from his earliest memories. Yet, he took no action toward that dream for 22 years. You may really love your child, but when they lose their cell phone, you get very upset. Worse, when you lose your own cell phone, you yell at others as if its their fault (sometimes).

What's behind this behavior that isn't influneced totally but what you value? Its a word that motivational scholars know well but many people don't. It's called "saliency." Something is salient if it gets your attention. It may be good, but not the best for you. It may be important but not the most important, BUT it has your attention. It is salient to you.

Another term you may be more familiar with that means the same as salient is "primacy." Something has primacy for you if it is what you think about first, not what is most important or best. You may value good health a lot but a bowl of ice cream put in front of you may take primacy in your thinking and its all you can think about until you finally eat it. A young person may value sexual purity but put in a situation where sexual activity has primacy, it is likely to lead to action in a way that feels good but is not best.

What we set our mind on takes primacy in how we feel and then what we do.

This is not new. It is not a discovery of modern psychology. Thousands of years ago we were told

"Seek ye first ...... and things will follow." 

Primacy, what has your attention? The trick for an abundant and virtuous life is to make the things that are the most important also the things that have primacy. Only then is "the urgent"not a "tyrant."

Certainly worth pondering .......