Thoughts and ideas

Thoughts and ideas are as common as breathing. They impact us in profound ways. They can be helpful to us or harmful. Therefore, are we victims of them? Do we control them or do they control us? Maybe you don't care. Thinking about thoughts and having an idea about ideas may just be too stressful? or useless to you! But, you know what ponderers do, THEY PONDER

First, let's start with the difference between thoughts and ideas. You may find it difficult to define either, must less distinguish between them. My old trusty authority on words, the 1828 Webster dictionary, says that a thought is "a object produced by the operation of the mind". The mind thinks and thoughts are the outcome. Then, what is an idea? Webster kind of beats around the bush on this, sometimes seeing idea as the same as thought, but sometimes extending the notion of an object produced by the mind to the understanding or meaning of the object or thought - the object's purpose or intention.

I am sure many of you by now are worried about me. Why would I spend any THOUGHT on this? While hardly anyone thinks about thought, what we assume about thought and ideas is very important in living an abundant and virtuous life.

First of all, what causes the mind to produce the particular thought it produces? Why do some people have "better" thoughts than others? Do we have some skill that affects our thoughts? Are thoughts more a product of morality than ability? Are humans even authors of their own thoughts?

Second, once we have a thought, what provides us the understanding? Would two people always have the same idea from the same thought? If not, what would cause the difference? Is it skill or moral goodness that makes the difference?

One serious flaw in our humanity may be that we think we are responsible for our thoughts and ideas. By being the source, we are in control. We just need more training or discipline or some kind of personal development to have the thoughts and ideas that produce a better life.

Let's consider another possibility - REVELATION. Maybe thoughts, the object produced by the mind, and ideas, the meaning of the object produced by the mind, actually comes to us from outside our selves? What if the process of the mind is more like a receiver than a generator? Does that matter?

If this is true and the mind is a receiver, then there is a very important question to ask - who or what is the sender? Maybe the ultimate quality of our life is not training our mind to produce, but to submit our mind to the right sender?

The Christian understands this theologically. We learn through Scripture that the Holy Spirit "bears witness" to us many things. We can't even produce the object of our prayers - this is revealed to us by the HS. The HS told Philip to witness to the Ethiopian Enuch and told Paul to go to Jerusalem. Most Christians accept revelation THEOLOGICALLY. But, to what degree do we accept it PSYCHOLOGICALLY? Can this Kingdom idea of thoughts and ideas have primacy in your life every moment and in every situation? Can we submit our minds to revelation as a matter of practice, or will we continue to think we are in control of producing our thoughts and ideas when we are not thinking theologically?  

I just happen to think that the return on an investment in revelation is "out of this world" ....

Do you understand?

How often in your discourse with others are you faced with the question, "do you understand?" Seems like a simple question. Usually you say you do, but you still have lingering questions. You may even fail to be as empathetic as you should be because you really don't fully understand.

How can this be?

Consider this

What may be going on is that you may understand WHAT the other person is feeling or experiencing, but you cannot really understand WHY they feel that way or HOW you can help them feel better or WHO is really causing them to feel threatened or fearful.




One problem with "understanding" are the complex set of questions the human brain seeks answers to. We usually only settle one of those in our discourse with others. Shouldn't we make an effort to explore or probe all of the dimensions of understanding when we engage others in communication?

Maybe "walking the brain" with another about important issues will truly help us listen and understand each other better?

Another issue with understanding is the frequent use of ambiguous or imprecise language. For instance, recently I listened to someone teaching young people about principles of good financial management. For illustration purposes, consider two of these principles:

1. save
2. avoid foolish debt

These sound reasonable, but how instructive are they? Does the audience really understand what the expert speaker is saying?

For instance, is saving merely a practice of putting money away? Maybe, maybe not. Putting money under your pillow during times of high inflation is not prudent. Sometimes saving can look like spending. What? Yes, spending can be either consumption or investing. If I buy something that will appreciate in value, then I am saving. Saving is much more complex than just the activity of setting money aside, SO simply instructing others "to save" can be easily misunderstood.

What makes debt "foolish"? Is this description of debt sufficient to guide anyone to prudent financial management? Is the idea of "foolish" too incomplete to provide good guidance? Suppose we advise others to avoid being too leveraged with debt? Is "foolish" debt really debt we have with risk in our ability to pay if and when adversity arises? If so, to help another understand the issue with debt, shouldn't we use the notion of leverage?

These are just examples, but they all illustrate why we talk and talk and talk and think everyone understands, BUT THEY DON'T.

Those that know me often roll their eyes when I push for more clarity. It may be a curse I live with but the absence of completeness and precision in our words too often leave us all frustrated or naive that others understand when they REALLY don't?

Just something to ponder ......

Protest: free speech or moral failure?

Recently around 100 students and other adults walked out of Notre Dame graduation ceremony to protest VP Pense's speech. Some applauded this as exercising first amendment rights to free speech. Many booed the action seeing it as rude or disgusting. Can both be right?

Unrelated but also recent was a report published showing significant moral decline in our country.The question that came to my mind is this: "can free speech and moral failure be related? If so, what makes it so?"

The right to free speech has been seen as an admirable behavior and necessary to liberty. However, the right to free expression may be misunderstood. This right is granted by the Constitution to protect citizens from government suppressing dissent. Somehow we have taken this to mean any citizen has the right to say or do whatever they wish about another citizen, even to silence those with whom they disagree. Is free speech acceptable when it shuts down free speech? Is this the idea of free speech envisioned by the Founding Fathers? Is bullying in the name of free speech a source of moral decay?

While protecting citizens from government control of speech, did the Founding Fathers envision that citizens would use free speech as a license for contempt? It seems that when someone acts in a way to diminish or condemn another person, they have held the other person in contempt. "Contempt" means treating someone with disdain, as if they are worthless. The Bible claims "contempt" is a form of self-righteousness - worse than anger and the same or worse than killing. To the degree walking out on someone is an act of contempt, this form of exercising free speech is a self-elevating moral failure.

Should we as a society frown on free speech that shows contempt and honor free speech that respects others and fosters debate? Its a sad day when bullies stand behind free speech to hold others in contempt. This is not a Constitutional right AND is a moral flaw,

You may think walking out on someone and disrespecting their right to speak is not contempt, but you cannot turn your back on the notion that debasing another person in the name of free speech is what our country is founded on and deserves protection.

  Moral imperative is a boundary on freedom of expression. 

Certainly worth pondering .....

Why sidewalks?

I was out for a walk today in the subdivision my daughter lives. It really was not a particularly special walk in that I was trying to avoid the rain and had nothing important to occupy my mind. A little way into my walk the thought overwhelmed me (as thoughts often do to me), "why did the developer spend the money to put in these nice wide sidewalks?"

I am sure most every subdivision that has been put in during the past 10 - 15 years has sidewalks. So maybe it was competitive pressure? or maybe the developer included sidewalks because it was just the thing developers were doing? Maybe the question was not even asked because not putting sidewalks in was never an option?

Of course there are positive reasons for sidewalks: added safety for walkers, especially kids, and some people just like how they look. But all I could do was think about the negatives: it added costs and it was unfair to the property owners who had the sidewalks on their side of the street because they had much more lawn care requirements in edging both sides of the sidewalk in addition to the street border.

The streets were nice and wide already and most of the streets were a cul-de-sac with very limited traffic. Many walkers used the streets to walk anyway and there was no accommodation for bikers. So, I pondered, "why didn't they just widen the street some, eliminate the sidewalks, and put walking and bike lanes in the streets?" Would this not provide sufficient safety for walkers and bikers and cost less to build and maintain? But the bigger question is, did anyone consider any alternative to what the developer did or was sidewalks just a given without asking the question - 'why'?  

After returning from my walk, I asked my son-in-law if he knew the answer to my question - why sidewalks? He immediately answered, without any hesitation and with great authority - "it is required by law." Oh I see now. Some bureaucrat decided that subdivisions should have sidewalks for the safety of kids because drivers are likely to be texting or otherwise not paying attention, maybe even speeding. So, again the solution to people not taking responsibility for their actions is government regulation. Again, the government requires citizens add cost to whatever they are doing to avoid risks.

Maybe subdivisions should have sidewalks, maybe not. Maybe the trade-off between costs and safety is worthwhile? BUT more likely and the question I really was pondering was, "did anyone really consider the question of  'why sidewalks?' or were sidewalks put in because that is just what developers do or because their is no constraint on government regulators to cost/justify their impact on society and to consider at some point people must accept responsibility for their actions?"    

The bigger question, way more than 'why sidewalks?' is, "at what point does society reign in government regulation? What are appropriate boundaries on decisions government makes for members of society? Where should markets determine what businesses choose to do or not do? Who answers these questions - government bureaucrats or 'we the people'?"

Healthcare, Energy, Education, Housing - I can go on and on with choices members of society no longer make because the government knows better. Where does this stop? What are the boundaries on regulation? These are the really big questions society must answer.

I ponder it often, do you? ......

"Gifted"

There is a fascinating movie just out called "Gifted". The main characters are a 7 yr old girl named Mary and her uncle named Frank, who has had custody of her since birth because Mary's mother committed suicide. Mary has extraordinary gifts as a mathematician, as did her mother and grandmother. Mary's mother was so gifted that her mother had kept her from all the normal aspects of life for a young girl to pursue unprecedented achievements in mathematics. Frank did not want Mary to "suffer" in that way, so he committed to give her as much of a normal life as he could. It was his gift of love to her (the multiple pictures of gifting in the movie). I won't spoil the plot for you by going any further, but I did want to share one scene that was profound in many ways.

There was a moment early in the movie where Mary asked her uncle, the one she saw as her authority, "Do believe there is a God?" Frank's response was (paraphrased), "No, but nobody really knows. The people who say they do say they have faith, but faith is just thinking and feeling a certain way. They really don't know."

We find out later Frank had a Ph D in Philosophy and had taught at a university in Boston before he took Mary to Florida away from all the influences of Mary's grandmother. What is important to note about Frank's response?

First, his response was very typical of what many people believe. This is especially true of many professors in universities. Second, Frank's conclusion about God was not the most significant message he gave to Mary. Her question was about God, but his answer was something even more profound. Hidden from him and therefore given to Mary was his core assumptions about knowledge, truth and faith. His worldview of God was a rational judgment flowing from a b4worldview about knowledge and faith. His assumption was that he could only trust knowledge he gained from physical evidence. That's a core assumption Frank never questioned, but used to "prove" everything else. He never considered that his core assumption was not the only one available to him. In fact, this assumption abut knowledge and faith maintains a great degree of futility. You could see it in Franks's answer, "nobody really knows."

Frank had a perfect opportunity to explain to Mary that there are 2 kinds of knowledge. One kind we do get from observing the physical world. And while there is physical evidence that beautiful sunsets, the ocean, the mountain, morality, love and many other things we experience in this world certainly point to "gifts" of a Creator, no one actually sees God visibly with their human eyes. Plus, we also see storms and other natural disasters as well as terrorism and many acts of evil and ask, "if there is a God, He must not really care that much or is not in control." The second kind of knowledge is the awareness we get from ways other than observation. Intuition and revelation provide us knowledge in ways that are different from what our physical senses provide. Some call this heart knowledge.

Because there are two kinds of knowledge, there are two kinds of evidence we can trust for our thoughts, feelings and actions. Science is the evidence from observable knowledge and faith is the evidence from the unobservable knowledge. Science is a "probabilistic" likelihood of something, faith is an "assurance." Frank's didn't just fail to give Mary a good answer about God, he failed to provide her a complete understanding of knowledge and faith.


Jesus came to earth to give mankind an observable glimpse of God (Christmas), but His resurrection (Easter) provided the ultimate GIFT. We now have faith we receive when God reveals Himself to us through unobservable knowledge (work of the Holy Spirit). Frank's love for Mary made a great movie. We admire that kind of love a lot. He gave her a normal life by his commitment to provide for her physical and emotional needs, BUT he missed giving her the gift that leads to eternal life, not normal life. He failed to share with her the Kingdom b4worldview of knowledge, truth and faith.

Where is your b4worldview? Where does it take you? to a normal life or to eternal life?

Certainly worth pondering this Easter ......  

Jesus' core assumptions

In the b4worldview course we established 5 categories of core assumptions people hold dear to make sense of themselves and their world in pursuit of an abundant and virtuous life:  

REALITY     TRUTH     TRUST    SATISFACTION   JUSTIFICATION

We also established two ways to view these and called them Column A and Column B. Column A represents the carnal mind or assumptions that flow from human nature.. Column B represents the Kingdom mind or assumptions that flow from identifying as primarily a spiritual being.While this may have been an unfamiliar way for you to look at worldviews and beliefs, it is actually not a new approach.

Several thousand years ago Jesus of Nazareth began his ministry with some official teaching on what the Kingdom of God is like. He chose a narrative that contrasted two completely different sets of core assumptions.


Guess what? These resemble the same assumptions presented in b4worldview. Let’s take a moment and see how Jesus’ core assumption about the abundant and virtuous life fits what is studied in b4worldview. In fact, Jesus’ argument is that as your identity changes and becomes found in Him, you receive the Kingdom mind and core assumptions that frame all of your thoughts, feelings and actions like Jesus.

Let’s look at what He said as He taught his closest students.

REALITY
Remember what we said about “reality”? You can search dictionaries and all kinds of books from cover to cover and you will not find a clear definition for “reality”. Our team looked at many sources for understanding “reality” and decided it refers to any and all existence that is worthy of our allegiance and affection. So, when we say “really”, like “do you really love me?”, we want to know if this is permanent or just a passing thing. Some would call this “eternal”, that what is real must last and hold up “forever.”

Jesus wanted His followers to understand column B reality as one that is different from column A. He specifically said this to His most dedicated followers, “do not lay up for yourselves treasures on earth where moths and rust destroy and thieves break in and steal, but lay up for yourselves treasures in Heaven where moths and rust cannot destroy and thieves cannot break in and steal. For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.”

See the contrast? He compares Column A reality with column B reality. Column A, an allegiance to the physical world, ties our affections to things that cannot last, objects subject to all sorts of destruction. Column B, things in heaven, a spiritual realm where God guarantees that there is no way His provisions can or will ever be destroyed by anything.

It is interesting that Jesus positions this column A – column B contrast with the notion of treasure. Your “treasure” is what you value the most and direct your allegiance. In motivation theory psychologists call this “valence”. Most people think of this as your passion. Jesus says your heart flows from your treasure. That is, what you value the most is the driving force for your motivation.
Interestingly, before He explains the two ways to view reality, He reminds you of how fortunate you are to have a Kingdom mind. He says earlier in His instruction, “as you have motives that are not contaminated by column A thinking, you can actually see God Himself, although He is invisible to the physical eye.” In other words with a column B identity you have spiritual eyes - your gnosis knowledge has an “open door policy” with God – you are filled with revelation not just from but OF the author of the universe Himself.

TRUTH
Remember we said that column A assumes that you can determine truth about something by observing the way things operate in the physical world and column B assumes truth about “something” is disclosed to us by the originator or maker of the “something”. Jesus addresses this too. He reminds us that the law can be useful to understand how things work, BUT that is not enough. Jesus goes further to explain how we can know the truth.  He says, “I didn’t come to do away with what people have written and said about how things work, I, myself, fully disclose everything there is to know about how things work.”  When you look for what is true, your conclusions flow from your Kingdom identity where the actual qualities of life are disclosed to us by the author and authority of all creation.

Jesus uses the “eye” to distinguish column A and column B assumptions about truth. That is interesting since we shared with you in great detail in session 5 how perception is so important in how we make sense of what we encounter in life. Remember we said that “its not what you see but what you see it is that matters.” Jesus points out that if the “eye is healthy”, meaning perceiving truth correctly, then your whole body will be healthy, or acting on what is true. BUT, if your “eye is UNhealthy”, then your whole body is filled with “darkness”, which means you cannot see and consequently act on what is true.

Jesus goes on to say that it is impossible to operate with both column A assumptions and column B assumptions. They are “mutually exclusive” as we pointed out in the course. He says you will either worship at the feet of the physical world, viewing truth by what you think you visibly see around you or you will worship the invisible author of all truth. Column A or Column B, they are totally different ways to see truth.

TRUST
Jesus says you can see the column B picture of trust all around you. Birds and flowers get everything they need without question. They don’t rely on what they do at all. They just receive all they need from the one who cares about them. They commit to being birds and flowers without having to judge their circumstances as supportive. AND SO, they do not worry if God will provide.

Trust is the willingness or motivation to rely on someone we cannot control, or maybe even always understand, because we believe that this someone will not act in their own self-interest at our expense. We talked about how valence or what we value influences our motivation when we discussed REALITY. The other component of motivation, the one we rely on to settle the risk of acting in a certain way is what has primacy in our attention or determines our priority. Your perception of the risk of your actions is foremost in your mind and is influenced by your assumptions about trust.  Column A assumes you must have sufficient understanding of the effect of your actions and how others will respond in order to act. Jesus says, in His own way, “NOPE, there is a column B view of trust, totally different from column A.”

Jesus says “Seek ye first the Kingdom of God and everything you can imagine will follow, maybe even some stuff you cannot imagine will come too”. This is a column B core assumption. Column A would have you proving something from observation, maybe even using good scientific inquiry, before you would know you could trust enough to act.  The Kingdom mind, consisting of column b assumptions, is simply to trust in the Kingdom in which you belong. You don’t need to figure out the risks. You don’t even have to know “why”. Jesus says that making the Kingdom your priority ushers out all risk and ushers in all trust.

Back in this teaching where Jesus was sharing with Kingdom minded people about the provisions and privileges of the Kingdom, he says,  “the fortunate are those who are meek”. Now the word “meek” may mean something to you that is quite different than what Jesus is saying. Our culture, which is dominated by column A thinking, would say that “meek” is being “weak”, unaggressive, let others ‘walk all over you.” No, that is not what is fortunate about being Kingdom minded. What “meek” means here is trusting totally in your master. This idea is like a well domesticated pet. The pet receives all the goodness of their master as their emotions and thoughts remain under the control of their master. This is what Jesus means when He says column B people receive blessing as they totally trust Jesus and not their own instincts and observations.

SATISFACTION
As we have said, Jesus repeatedly claims that with a Kingdom mind “you are so fortunate”.  Jesus mentions several ways we are blessed, but His very first point is that blessing comes as you recognize that “you are absolutely destitute when it comes to providing life for yourself”. Does this sound like a rebuke of column A assumptions? That is, with a Kingdom identity, you realize you are totally inept at meeting your own needs. You avoid all the stress of the responsibility to exchange your actions to satisfy your need for purpose, joy, freedom, hope, esteem and belonging. God provides all of this. After all, He is the Creator and Ruler over all things. He makes a great promise in His instruction to Kingdom dwellers, “Do not fear, little flock, your Father has chosen gladly to give you His Kingdom.” Thus, as one who identifies with Christ, everything God has is bestowed on you, a column B assumption.

This is emphasized in His instruction to His students. Jesus explains the column A vs column B assumptions in three important virtues people desire – charity, prayer, and fasting. Jesus points out that if you do these three activities as a contingent on or in exchange for what you receive, then you will receive only in proportion to what you give. But if you do these activities from your heart because you are so thankful He has chosen you, then you can see that rewards come to you at the discretion of God. Jesus reminds us that God is a generous and reliable provider who rewards according to his sovereign will. Contingent rewards are the way of column A and discretionary rewards are the way of column B.

You want to know something that is interesting? These three activities are also core to the 5 Pillars of Islam. BUT, there is one big difference. The difference is what we discussed in the b4worldview course. The difference is a column A vs column B core assumption. In Islam the follower must do these things in exchange for God’s favor. While Muslims do look to God to meet the needs of their soul, they do so with a column A assumption, believing in reward and punishment based on their own actions. So while charity, prayer and fasting are central to the life of both Christians and Muslims, the assumption that influences a Christian and a Muslim’s thoughts, feelings and actions associated with these three virtues is totally different.

One of the needs of the soul we discussed was purpose. Remember column A purpose had to do with how we impact our circumstances, including lives of others, by what we do. Jesus makes a statement about purpose that suggests a column B assumption. Jesus says our purpose is to reflect the significance of God to others, using light and flavoring as illustrations. This view of purpose aligns with the spiritual orientation that we fulfill our purpose when our life points to and glorifies God rather than when we accomplish something significant that reflects our own glory.

JUSTIFICATION
Jesus gave His followers an astounding contrast between the Kingdom of Heaven and the way the world generally thinks about becoming OK. He said, “unless your righteousness exceeds that of the Pharisees, you are not right with Him.” “Wait a minute,” His students must have thought. “The Pharisees are the most moral people we know. How can we be better at meeting the standard of the law than them?” That was Jesus’ point. He used hyperbole a lot to draw a distinction between two ideas. Basically, He was saying it is impossible to be right with God by what you do.

Jesus uses three examples to point the students to how they are inclined naturally to meet God’s standard with a column A view of doing the right thing. He says you focus on the law to not kill, but you hold anger and contempt for others in your heart – GUILTY. This is self-righteousness, using column A thinking to view yourself as better than another. He says you focus on not committing adultery, but you are consumed by lust – GUILTY. This is self-gratification, using column A thinking to exchange your actions for physical pleasure from another. Thirdly, He says you set up rules, such as when you can divorce your wife, that meet your needs but ignores God’s desire and will for you – GUILTY. This is self-justification, using a column A that man can establish the rules where God has set in place what is right.

If we asked God to be a teacher in b4worldview course, He would say that the column A mind does not justify you before Him. There must be another way. He goes on to suggest to us that the way of his Kingdom, column B, is not one of rights in this world. He says the world works on reciprocity, like “an eye for an eye”. BUT, the kingdom is grasping the privilege of being His child, in His Kingdom, so that we are not bound by justice that man can exercise. We go the extra mile and give others what they have no right to ask us for. The Kingdom mind makes us complete, not an exchange view to strive for what we deserve.

Earlier Jesus had explained the Kingdom this way, “You are fortunate you are rejected by the world around you because you are made righteous by God Himself.” In other words, seeking your approval from others is not the way to be made OK when God has made you OK by His willful act on your behalf.

Justification involves judging. Column A mind leads people to want to be the judge and determine what is right and who is OK. Jesus warns His students about column A judging. He tells them that if they operate under a column A type of judgment, where people decide who is guilty or not based on their own judgments of what is right and wrong, then that is the judgment they will receive. You will receive a “guilty verdict” based on what you do against the standard. This morality you seek to fulfill may be your own standard or be set up by society or maybe even be the standards you think God has established. In a sense Jesus is saying that when you depend on or apply justice to determine what someone deserves, then that standard of justice is what will be applied to you. Jesus is basically repudiating column A Justification. He is reminding you of its futility.

Jesus uses the example of wide and narrow gates to contrast the two ways for you to consider justification. He says column A looks wide open, seems to be a good way to go, in fact, it feels very natural to use justice as the basis for determining who is guilty and who is not. Remember how we discussed in detail in session 5 that justice may be the greatest concern of people. Judging each other, and ourselves, by what we do is the most natural way to understand what makes us right or OK.
Column B is very “narrow” in a sense. It is narrow because if requires that we off load our desire for justice to be applied and accepts that God took care of our guilt and made us OK by His own action, not ours. It is just so hard, so unnatural to see justice that way.

WOW, that is a lot. Jesus did not take short cuts in explaining His Kingdom to His students. That’s one reason we were so detailed throughout b4worldview course to explain the two sets of core assumptions, the two minds – column A and column B. Jesus was very focused throughout His b4worldview course with his students to contrast the two minds – the mind of the world – relying on eido knowledge primarily and focusing on what you can do to earn or gain, through exchange, REALITY, TRUTH, TRUST, SATISFACTION and JUSTIFICATION and the mind of Christ, relying on gnosis knowledge of God and thereby receiving from the Father all that is necessary for the abundant and virtuous life. After all, He chooses to give it all to us and HE CAN.

He finishes His course reminding His students the futility of column A and the fullness of column B. He compares the two minds with a builder who has two options for building his house. The builder can build his house on sand, BUT when the storms come, his house will not withstand the pressure and will be destroyed. OR he can build his house on rock, so that when the storms come, the solid foundation will prevail and the house will not be destroyed.

This is the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Much of what you learned in b4worldview course may have been surprising and somewhat disturbing to you. Well, the Bible tells us that when Jesus had finished His course with his students, “they were astonished.” You see, Jesus taught with an authority on this subject. Its not like He just studied what someone else had said or written. He is the author of His message. In other words, Jesus said, you can take what I have said about the two minds to the bank.”
In your human nature, your carnal mind results in the futility of a column A b4worldview, a set of assumptions that leads to destruction. Yet, God has acted on your behalf and in doing so, has provided you with a new identity, an identity different from the one you inherited from the error of Adam and Eve, a new identity resulting in an abundant and virtuous life influenced by a different set of core assumptions - the column B b4worldview.

Jesus gives us in this historically profound course on b4worldview some GREAT NEWS. The Gospel is not just a great course of instruction, the Gospel transforms your mind from a focus on REWARDS and RIGHTS you expect from this world to a focus on PROVISIONS and PRIVILEGES of the Heavenlies.

You move from futility to fullness.

This is certainly worth pondering and maybe some investment in time to go through the b4worldview course .......

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 :-)