My Simple Little Proposal: Part 2

Republicans continue to be criticized for not acting in good faith when it comes to the healthcare debate. More specifically, in Obama's speech to Congress last night he argued that opponents of a public option were guilty of cultivating a culture of fear based on what he termed "lies." Apparently, no one has informed Obama that you can catch a lot more flies with honey than with vinegar. The tone of the address seemed to do little more than to heighten passions on both sides of the debate.

Rewind with me for one second. In April 2009, actress turned commentator Janeane Garofalo argued that Tea Party protesters were historically ignorant claiming that conservatives' real opposition to the national healthcare option was more about the race of the person proposing the healthcare option than the legislation itself. She claimed that conservatives knew nothing about the original Tea Party. In her own words: "Let's be very honest about what this is about. This is not about bashing Democrats. It's not about taxes. They have no idea what the Boston Tea Party was about. They don't know their history at all. It's about hating a black man in the White House. That is racism straight up. This is nothing but a bunch of teabagging rednecks."

Rewind with me one more time for just a second. Let's prove Janeane Garofalo wrong and put the original Tea Party in its original context and see if she is right or not. In order to encourage settlement among the colonies, sweetheart deals were offered to companies and individuals who were willing to take the physical risks associated with colonial settlement. Remember that in the 17th century, colonial settlement was a very dangerous proposition. Oftentimes, people did not survive the journey, let alone life after arrival. As an incentive for taking this risk, land was offered very cheaply, often tax-free. This was a very attractive incentive because even if it did not secure an easy life for the original settlers it offered the hope of a prosperous life for their posterity.

One century later, England found itself embroiled in the colonial conflict called the French and Indian War. In return for defending colonists, King George felt it appropriate that the columnist should share the burden for the cost of their defense. This led to a series of taxes being passed by Parliament, the most famous being a tax on overseas tea. What angered the colonists most was not the taxes themselves, as much as the lack of political representation in Parliament to ensure the fair representation of the colinists' interests. This anger was encapsulated in the now famous saying: "no taxation without representation." Only when it became apparent that the English government had no interest in making sure the colonists interests were fairly represented in Parliament did a more intense discontent and anger with the English government begin to ensue. In truth, there was even wide disagreement among the colonists about whether such expressions of revolt where appropriate methods of conflict resolution.

Returning to our modern situation, critics of conservatives argue that unlike the participants of the ancient Tea Party, modern "Tea Party" participants and others discontented with the proposed government healthcare option are appropriately represented in Congress. Therefore, critics argue, the Modern Tea Party Movement has no parallel to the original "Tea Party." I disagree, especially when it comes to the issue of healthcare.

How can pro-government-option proponents argue with a straight face that any of us are being fairly represented on this issue when the people seeking to pass the legislation will not be forced to live under the same laws they will expect the rest of us to live under. As I argued in my previous post, if Democrats are really serious about getting past what they claim to be "lies and distortions", they need do only one thing: make any law they pass applicable to all federal officials as well. This simple move will ensure that any bill that ultimately results will be good enough for Congress, and therefore likely good enough for the rest of us.

Even though I am inherently opposed to another government program, I make this pledge to one and all. I will vigorously support any bill that passes as long as Congress is willing to live under the same bill without any additional perks. This will radically change the tone of the debate. Furthermore, it will ensure the greatest amount of goodwill from congressional voters since voters will realize their representatives actually have skin in the game. If people have fear about what is going to be passed, it is with good reason. No current government official is going to be forced to live under any of the proposals that are being offered. If the federal government is not forced to live under the same system, how can they truly be said to represent us? This is exactly why I argue that the current situation is much closer to the original tea party than opponents are ready to acknowledge. We have no true representation from either party on this issue. Once again, if Congress is really concerned about healthcare, lead us to where YOU are willing to go, and we will follow!

My Simple Little Proposal

As of this note, the president is getting ready to try once again to argue for some form of a health care proposal. Democrats have repeatedly argued that Republicans have "no ideas." I challenge that assessment. Simply because don't like like Republican ideas doesn't mean they don't exist or that they are inherently bad or untenable. Nonetheless, I digress. Instead of trying to once again present the litany of proposals that have been offered by conservatives, I offer this very simple alternative: I will accept without question any healthcare bill that all branches of government are willing to accept for themselves without exception. I will accept any proposal the government is willing to accept for itself. after all, any official who truly represents you and me should live a life like the one we live. Last time I checked, this government is still a Republic and not a monarchy or egalitarian form of government. Who is with me on this?

Can You Help Me .... Again?

Today as I did my usual aerobic workout, I realized I needed to take care of two items of important business. First, and most importantly, I realized that I needed to take the time to specifically thank many of my former peers especially from ORU who often proved to have a better set of spiritual eyes than the administrators that had charge over them. When I first came to ORU in 1982, many assumed that my physical disability was automatically the direct result of lack of faith or other hidden sin. Through much patience and the support of people like you, I, Chris Davis, Susan Slade, and many others were able to work to gradually change the culture of the ORU community.

Today ORU is a much better place for disabled people to attend college because people like you chose not to judge a book by its cover but to look inside the heart. Despite many in the upper administration who would have preferred people like me to just go away, you chose to invite people like me into your dorm rooms and wings and actually believe that someone like me in a wheelchair could have something meaningful to say. For that, I will always be eternally grateful. You may not realize it, but your refusal to accept unhealthy stereotypes and simply assume that my condition was the result of lack of faith on my part has gone a long way to contributing to the Charismatic Movement as a whole. You proved that it is possible to believe in God's healing power and still accept the tension of the "not yet" Your openness has helped expediate the overall maturity of the Charismatic Movement and ultimately facilitate many of the current changes we are now witnessing at ORU that many thought could never occur. Thank you so much for your openness. I pray that I have been a good steward of the opportunities your openness has given me through the years.

Today, my heart was once again troubled by an even bigger task that lies ahead. My goal here is not to be political and if I knew how to remove the political dimensions from what I will address next, I certainly would do so. All of the healthcare proposals that are currently in front of Congress will at some point require healthcare rationing. I realize that both the president and Congress have said this will not occur. However, all of the models currently being considered will by necessity require rationing. This is because there is simply not enough money or doctors and nurses to facilitate the level of need that will be created for any of these plans. The current administration has made no secret of the fact that they believe that too much money is currently being funneled to the elderly and disabled who in their opinion contributed little to society.

Like the ORU of the 1980s, the United States runs the risk of becoming a country that is actually hostile to the disabled and elderly because of the cost they generate and their perceived lack of contribution to the tax system. This in many ways directly parallels the way in which the upper ORU administration of the early 1980s tried to keep disabled individuals like me hidden and off camera at all costs. But because YOU DID NOT ACCEPT THE STEREOTYPE, the culture at ORU ultimately changed. I know it is still not perfect, but because of you and your openness to people like me, it is a lot better than it once was.

I am in no way naïve about the high cost of healthcare. However, to go after specific groups of people will have a host of unintended consequences, not the least of which will be an institutionalized prejudice against the elderly and disabled being propagated by none other than the US government. I am not suggesting that this is their deliberate intention, I am merely suggesting that the current policies being floated do not take these issues into account.

When God gave the 10 Commandments, one of them was "honor your father and mother that it may go well with you in the land." In the Jewish culture, honoring your father and mother, interestingly enough, was not specifically related to a respect issue of children as it is typically interpreted in our culture. Honoring your father and mother in the Jewish culture specifically meant making sure they were financially provided for in their old age. Sadly, many of the bills now being considered by Congress would do exactly the opposite. Because of the shortage of doctors and nurses that would be created by trying to give everybody healthcare coverage, the government would ultimately be in charge of determining who gets what. Both the president and Congress have expressed chagrin at the fact that so many of our healthcare resources are filtered to the elderly and disabled. They believe many of these resources could be better allocated if they were focused on the young who still have many years to contribute to the work force. In other words, healthcare dollars when be focused on prevention (the one positive aspect of the current proposals), but at the expense of the elderly and those like myself with pre-existing conditions (the negative aspects of the proposals).

On the surface, this may sound quite positive. If you are a young person with no health issues you will love these proposals. There are likely to be incentives for help prevention measures such as free YMCA memberships and the like. However, if you are older or have pre-existing conditions you will ultimately be out of luck. Moreover, these proposals will most certainly be used to promote abortion for those who show any evidence of pre-existing conditions. Additionally, elderly can expect to receive end-of-life counseling encouraging assisted suicide as a way of saving money for the society as a whole. Could you imagine a situation in which your father, your mother, aunt or uncle are encouraged to in their life prematurely in exchange for tax breaks for you? It is true that none of this has been codified into law yet, but do not be fooled, they are on the table. What the current proposals fail to realize is that God has blessed us in the long run when we have treated at risk groups like the elderly and disabled well. In the end, the same science that extends the life of elderly and disabled individuals ultimately saves the life of the young who become unexpectedly afflicted as well.

When I was at ORU, other disabled people sometimes became irritated with me because I never believed that the culture of ORU would change through political pressures such as threatening lawsuits because of prejudice. I am still convinced that the long way around of building relationships with people is the best course of action. By taking the time to build relationships rather than threaten lawsuits, change did not come as quickly as some people desired, but it was in my opinion more deep and more thorough in my opinion than it would have been trying to use the legal or political routes to our benefit. You and your friendship helped me prove that true change could occur without being imposed from the outside.

Today we are faced with the same kind of challenge from our own government that was facing ORU when I came in 1982. As I was praying about the situation, I felt that God had laid it on my heart to ask for your help once again. Like then, I am convinced that the real changes that need to occur will require more than political changes. As American citizens, voting responsibly is definitely important, but it is only part of the answer. Today more than ever this country is in need of a spiritual awakening. A true spiritual awakening will take care of our political dilemmas. When people's hearts are right they will vote right. That brings me to my request from you.

If I have ever been able to bless your life in any way I have one simple request: Would you consider sharing about my ministry with your pastor, church, and friends? Jackie and I are convinced now more than ever that God is calling us to be more intentional about ministry now more than ever. Additionally, would you consider supporting other businesses, organizations and projects that are sponsored by elderly and disabled individuals? I am hopeful that one of the side benefits of this effort will be a refined focus on important issues like healthcare the did not target specific groups like the elderly and disabled. Even though I am hopeful that there will be a long-term impact on our government and its policies, rest assured that my primary goals are in no way political. If you or your pastor invite me to your church, I will stick to biblical truth as I always have. Yes, I have my political opinions, and they are strong. But, at the end of the day, it will be only a revival that will save America.

Jackie and I are making a concerted effort to go where God sends us. If you or your church would be interested in us sharing on a weekend or during the summer months please let us know. We are here to serve you. By helping me, hopefully, you will be helping yourself as well. My contact information is available in the Facebook phonebook.

Committed To You Always,

Michael Postlethwaitm