When even Newt Gingrich admits the GOP has “zero ideas” for alternatives to the Affordable Care Act, and when it’s a given that health care spending is the main source of unsustainable deficit spending in the out years, it’s frustrating to try to have an intelligent conversation with people on this subject when they thoughtlessly dismiss “Obamacare” because of uninformed ideological bias.

What to do? Here are some thoughts on educating our fellow citizens on the health care issue.

There are three basic models for delivering health care that are economically viable. (Note this only addresses economics, not ethics, as you will see.)

Model 1: Everyone is responsible for their own health care costs. Under this model, which America followed before World War II, market forces would indeed hold down the cost of health care. If everyone had to pay for visits to the doctor or hospital or their own medicine, or for their own insurance, market forces would certainly reduce costs. (What would happen to quality is another story.)

Although this sounds attractive at first blush, especially to free market purists, it must be emphasized this only works economically if you accept the bad with the good. You would have to eliminate employer-provided health insurance, since it clearly destroys the market linkage. Those who consume something must pay for it themselves for markets to work. Somebody shows up at the emergency room that can’t pay? The hospital must refuse them service. An accident occurs and someone is bleeding to death? If you can’t pay, goodbye. Talk of “charity care” in this model is ludicrous. The vast majority of what we call “charity care” is paid for by a de-facto tax on paying customers. If you doubt this is a tax, try opting out of the “charity” portion of your next hospital or doctor bill. Any deviation from harsh market realities causes this model to break down, because if people can receive free care, what’s the incentive to take personal responsibility?

The current system in America, which operates under the illusion that we use this model but which is so contaminated that market forces are almost non-existent, proves the folly of thinking a free market system can work that leaves any room for compassion. Our bastardized system has more waste and costs more than any other industrialized country, and we rank comparatively low for what we pay for. A market-based system must be heartless or it will not work economically.

Model 2: Single payer. In America, this idea is commonly proposed as “Medicare for all”. In this model, some sort of tax (most commonly a payroll type tax) is created, and this tax is used to pay for universal health care. Traditional Medicare is one way this could work. Another (the German model) would use the tax to pay for vouchers, which individual families could use to purchase basic health insurance. (Note the German model actually has more of a true market structure than ours, since insurance companies must compete for customers, and customers, not employers, hold the purse strings.)

Costs are controlled in this model mainly by budget: The society in question decides how much they will spend on health care, and providers must figure out a way to make the money stretch. It largely eliminates the incentive for overtreatment that exists in a fee-for-services system, but it can result in some rationing of care.

Model 3: Keep private insurance and private providers, but require everyone to have insurance. As a necessary addition, since everyone is required to have insurance, those who can’t afford it will need some sort of subsidy to join the insurance pool. Model 3 recognizes that you can’t wait until you are sick or old to have health insurance. By definition, for Model 3 to work, everyone who will sometime in their life need health care must pay into the pool.

The problem with Model 3 is in the details. The concept is simple, but the details can become complex. Who is responsible, the individual or the employer? What happens when you change jobs or are uninsured? What about people with pre-existing conditions? The Affordable Care Act follows Model 3, and dealing with those details is why it’s so complex.

That’s it. Any economically viable system for delivering health care must follow one of these three models. So, when you encounter someone who starts spouting off against Obamacare, challenge them: Which of the three models would you choose?

The complexities required by Model 3 pretty much guarantees there will be some bumps along the road in the implementation of the Affordable Care Act that will need to be tweaked. But, my fellow LDS Dems, we must not let the critics off the hook, whether those critics are Sen. Mike Lee, Congressman Bishop, or our friends and neighbors. If you don't like Obamacare, you'd better be ready to suggest an alternative.

Recent news stories, led by a New York Times piece featuring former Swedish Area Authority Hans Mattson, who lost his testimony, have Mormons discussing the subject of faith. The common thread in these news stories is that the Internet has made information freely available, and some members are discovering facts that don’t quite square with the somewhat sanitized version of Church history we are taught in our Sunday School classes.

I wanted to share a few thoughts on this subject.

First, let us be clear that there has been only one perfect, sinless, mistake-free being in the human race: the carpenter from Nazareth. Those who we sustain as leaders of the Church are human. Furthermore, although I believe we are led by revelation, I don’t believe those we sustain as prophets, seers and revelators are puppets on a string where every thought and action is dictated by the Holy Ghost.

I’m reminded of an anecdote from one of my favorite Mormons, Professor Henry Eyring.  Someone asked him once whether having such close contact with the Brethren (he was Spencer W. Kimball’s brother in law and worked in the General Sunday School presidency) sometimes tried his faith when he saw their mistakes. Brother Eyring did not deny that the Brethren were imperfect. He simply said that if the Lord could make use of others, despite their faults, maybe He could find something useful for Brother Eyring to do. I think that humble, forgiving way of looking at others is the right approach. Henry Eyring also had a very strong opinion (which he shared with the Brethren at every opportunity) that Church authorities should teach the Saints the unvarnished truth about Church history, including the warts. We can see the wisdom of Brother Eyring’s counsel in these recent events. I don’t believe official Church teaching materials deceived the Saints, but it’s easy to understand why these materials would be written to portray Church history in a positive light – and why some Latter-day Saints might experience a crisis of faith when presented with information that seemed to be in conflict with the “official” version.

Professor Richard Bushman, a nationally respected historian and practicing Latter-day Saint, published his landmark Joseph Smith history Rough Stone Rolling in 2005. Many of the issues Brother Mattson struggled with are documented in this book. Joseph Smith did not just teach polygamy, he had many women sealed to him. It also appears the Book of Abraham and the Book of Mormon were largely translated the same way the Book of Moses was received: through direct revelation, rather than the decoding of ancient writings. Specifically, scholars have found no evidence of Joseph’s Book of Abraham in the papyri text it was purported to have come from, and some accounts from witnesses to the process have Joseph dictating the text of the Book of Mormon looking through the seerstone, while the plates remained covered with a cloth.

More recently, statements from Church leaders leave the impression that there was not any doctrinal justification for denying the priesthood to men of African descent. Claims that the Lamanites are the “primary” ancestors of the American Indians have been modified in the most recent Book of Mormon edition to stating they are “among” their ancestors – after modern DNA testing did not show strong evidence of a relationship with modern persons of Jewish descent.

What are we to make of all this? Here are my personal feelings on the matter. As with Christians around the world, I often turn to the wisdom of C.S. Lewis for comfort. Lewis states that all believers go through the process of finding a testimony; the point at which we decide that the evidence is overwhelming that Christianity is true (in my case, the version taught by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints). As time goes by, things happen in our lives to create doubt. Maybe we find ourselves in a position where it would be convenient if Christian principles were not true. It is often just changes in mood or a reaction to life’s difficulties. And sometimes, we are exposed to information that appears at first glance to conflict with our knowledge. It is at this point, Lewis says, that our faith needs to come into play. He uses the analogy of his paranoia about anesthesia. His logic tells him that things will be fine during surgery, but he had a phobia that the doctors will start cutting into him before the anesthesia takes effect. He then has to exercise faith, based on logic, to suppress his emotions.  Such is the case for most that drift away from their faith. The overwhelming evidence is still in favor of their original conclusion, but the shock of some emotional experience (such as finding for the first time that Brother Joseph had other wives sealed to him) causes doubt.

That is where I stand. Occasionally we hear Latter-day Saints in testimony meeting state, “I know without a doubt that the Church is true”. Here is my testimony: Despite occasional doubts, I know the Church is true. On balance, when considering all the evidence (including the testimony of the witnesses) and my own experience with the book, I am convinced the most plausible explanation for the existence of the Book of Mormon is the account given by Joseph Smith – however implausible that account may seem to unbelievers. When I consider my understanding of Church history and the doctrines, when I read the testimonies of Church leaders and members past and present, and most of all, when I consider the sacred personal spiritual experiences I have been blessed to have, I am left with the conclusion that the evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of the Restored Gospel being exactly what it claims to be. That doesn’t mean there aren’t a few pebbles on the left hand side of the balance scale, but they are overwhelmed by the heavy gold nuggets on the right hand side.

I will close with one of those personal experiences. While I was on my mission in Sweden, my mother forwarded a cassette tape of some General Conference addresses from 1976. One was a sermon on temple work from Boyd K. Packer. The sermon was inspiring, but it was his testimony at the end that I remember. (The written record of this testimony is somewhat different than the spoken version in conference.) I received a powerful witness that this man had seen beyond the veil, and that he really did know that of which he spoke. It was an experience that has stayed with me all these years.

I have to admit that President Packer has said some things in recent conferences that make me a little uncomfortable. But the attacks on him by people I consider friends also make me uncomfortable. I think we have to be charitable to others and consider their life and actions as a whole when making judgment, and I can never forget the impact this man has had on my life and on the lives of others, despite some personal biases rooted in an earlier time.

Life is hard and occasionally confusing, but I am grateful that I have the anchor of the Restored Gospel to stand on as our family negotiates the currents of life.

In 2009 when President Obama first took office, America faced a serious healthcare problem that had been ignored for decades.  Significant changes needed to be made to address our nation’s problems, which included rising costs and inadequate care following a trajectory to insolvency.  At President Obama’s inauguration forty-five million citizens did not have access to insurance, using the emergency room as their primary care facility.  Medicare and Medicaid were facing default and driving federal deficits to record levels. The private healthcare industry accounted for 21 percent of total US GDP, contrasting with 11-13 percent for comparative nations.  In addition, the US healthcare budget faced $60 trillion in unfunded liabilities over the next 75 years, with no solution.  To compound the problem, private industry was leveraging tax-payer dollars for short term profits, disregarding long term accountability.

At first glance the challenge to obtain healthcare solvency appeared insurmountable.  Many demanded scaling back Medicaid, while others wanted to implement similar single-payer programs as found in Germany, Japan, Canada, or England.  Several blamed insurance and pharmaceutical industries for driving costs, and others cited frivolous lawsuits which drove doctors to provide unnecessary care.  Almost all voices aligned that cutting Medicare was not an option due to voter demographics, and any legislation to weaken private industry would be met with cries of socialism.  It was under these conditions that the Affordable Care Act (ACA) was debated and passed which brought together ideas from every political ideology.

The Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare, is one of the most significant pieces of legislation signed into law in the recent history of the United States. Although the law is complex and appears ambiguous, understanding the intent of this law is critical to evaluating its merits. Simply stated, the ACA can be broken into three areas of responsibility:

Business: Shifts healthcare responsibility away from the government to private industry.

Individual: Levels the playing field between private healthcare providers through the use of exchanges, thereby fostering competition for individual policies.

Government: Expands state Medicaid to cover families under 133 percent of the poverty line (Medicaid currently covers up to 100 percent).

Business Responsibility:

Large corporations with elastic goods depend on low cost structures and therefore low wages. In many regards these businesses are as dependent as the lazy, using government to subsidize their benefits and pocketing the difference. Almost half of the uninsured (46%) work full time with 28% working part time.  Many of these full time workers are employed by companies like Wal-Mart, whose average associate receives $1,000 in annual government entitlements.  Subsidizing benefits with governmental entitlements has allowed corporations and shareholders to enjoy record profits.  They also place greater pressure on government liabilities and drive up costs to taxpayers.

Obamacare (ACA) holds all businesses and corporations responsible for supplying healthcare.  If a business employs more than 50 full time workers, they are responsible for providing insurance or paying a penalty (the implementation of this mandate was recently postponed for a year).  If a company employs 25 people or less, tax credits are provided to subsidize coverage. Seventy percent of all healthcare costs happen in the final fifteen years of an individual’s life, typically while under the umbrella of Medicare.  Access to life-long preventative medicine is critical in lowering Medicare liabilities.  Shifting coverage to private industry also lowers the government’s emergency room expenses which the uninsured use in place of primary care physicians.

There has been significant reaction to the healthcare law’s corporate directive.  Mandating industry to provide insurance for their employees will increase costs for any entity not already doing so today.  This is a fair criticism, especially when it comes to small businesses that cross the fifty employee threshold.  However, looking at cumulative data and avoiding anecdotal arguments allows for a balanced discussion of the overall impact.  When it comes to small business, less than ten percent fall into that much-discussed mandated responsibility, as the other ninety percent currently meet Obamacare (ACA) requirements.  To assist both the ten percent and the 90 percent, Obamacare gives access to competitive exchanges (known as SHOP) which will drive down costs for employers currently offering healthcare.

Individual Responsibility:

When an individual is not covered by an employer or as a dependent, they are responsible for their own insurance.  Beginning in October 2013, the government will create a competitive vehicle where insurance companies meeting basic requirements can compete for business. Similar to websites Expedia or Lending Tree, once personal criteria is entered, insurers will publish rates and the consumer can choose a plan based on price or benefits.  Known as insurance exchanges, these will be launched nationally to help consumers make educated choices and provide a baseline for coverage comparison.  Exchanges will soften interstate requirements and prerequisites allowing for productive competition between insurance providers.

Similar to existing employer-provided healthcare, a person's individual policy will also allow access to preventative medicine. Even more important, individual healthcare will allow small firms (fewer than fifty employees) to compete with the benefits of larger firms when attracting employees as benefits are universally.

Since the bulk of uninsured individuals are under 35 years (65%), providing coverage for them is critical to lowering costs for all private insurance companies, given their healthy age demographic.  These younger, healthier participants are needed to offset high risk individuals, much like auto insurance or Medicare.  Because the inclusion of low risk individuals is critical in driving down costs, it is imperative they sign up.  One of the concerns is that uninsured individuals will forgo purchasing their insurance until they need it.  At this point, the only penalty they will face is an $89 annual tax, which is not very persuasive.  However, if the exchanges are able to drive down prices making health insurance affordable and attractive, this concern should be overcome (we will know in October).

Government Responsibility:

On the government side, Obamacare (ACA) legislation mandated that State Medicaid programs cover individuals whose annual earnings fell within 133 percent of the Federal Poverty Level (FPL). The FPL currently covers at 100 percent, so the ACA provided funding to cover the increase; however, this mandate was struck down by the Supreme Court.  States can now opt out of expanding Medicaid, forgoing federal subsidies and leaving millions of their state residents uninsured.  Since those  in this demographic tend to be part of the healthier population, the aforementioned balance between the healthier individuals providing offset to sicker individuals will be more difficult to obtain, and insurance prices may not reach their full potential.

Living in Arizona and watching the fight over Governor Brewer’s decision to expand Medicaid, it’s hard to understand why any state would opt out.  The expansion will bring additional funding, jobs, and access to healthcare. States rejecting the Medicaid expansion will lose out on $8.4 billion in federal funding, exclude coverage for 3.6 million uninsured, and see $1 billion more in uncompensated spending.  Even more problematic, states rejecting expansion will see non-reimbursable emergency room and Medicare costs grow.

Political Blowback:

While I have argued that healthcare coverage is a three-pronged responsibility, many feel that a single payer healthcare system is the preferred model. This caused some to level the charge that President Obama did not fulfill one of his signature promises from the 2008 campaign: obtaining single payer healthcare.  Instead he took Governor Romney’s framework from Massachusetts, authored by the conservative Heritage Foundation, and leveraged the plan in a spirit of compromise. Initially this infuriated supporters as they felt betrayed on an issue they believed was mandated from the decisive election victory.  While President Obama may have expected this, what he probably didn’t expect was the venomous backlash from the right, even though the ACA is based on a healthcare plan they helped create, implemented by a popular centrist Governor.

Perhaps what opponents are politically afraid of is not the demise of the American healthcare system, but the potential success of Obamacare (ACA).  Currently three states have released preliminary pricing for their healthcare exchanges with better-than-anticipated results.  By October all states will see competitive pricing on the exchanges and citizens across the US will begin shopping for their preferred rates and cutting through political propaganda. For the governors of states that rejected the expansion of Medicaid, they will have to explain to 3.6 million employed voters why similar citizens in other states have healthcare and they do not.

Final Thoughts:

While no legislation is perfect, the ACA improves access to healthcare, not only for the uninsured, but also sets guidelines to improve care and protect consumers through some of the following benefits:

• Pre-existing conditions will not be a barrier to coverage.

• Preventative medicine will be included by every approved insurer saving billions of dollars on Medicare.

• A defined percentage of insurance revenue must be applied to the actual care.

• Parents can keep their dependent kids on their insurance until the age of 26.

• Insurers cannot drop coverage due to personal changes in healthcare.

• Doctors will be paid with Medicare rates, currently higher than Medicaid rates.

• The “lifetime cap” for individual reimbursements is removed.

Perhaps the biggest criticism is the expense of the Affordable Care Act (ACA). But according to the non-partisan CBO, Obamacare (ACA) is deficit neutral.  If Obamacare was to be repealed, there would be no change to our annual deficit or national debt.  Any additional costs associated with the law are offset primarily by scale and penalties paid by those unwilling to buy private insurance.  In fact the latest projections by the CBO resulted in $150 billion budgetary savings over 10 years versus the system currently in place. Opponents also charge that Obamacare is a tax for those who remain uninsured.  This is a fair statement; however the receipts collected will help offset emergency room liability for the uninsured that all taxpayers subsidize today.

To understand the new healthcare law, it is imperative to ask the right questions in order to open up honest debate.  Obamacare (ACA) is a far cry from socialism; its main purpose is to reduce Medicare and uninsured emergency room expenditures through access to care.  It uses tax penalties to push citizens away from government and into the hands of private insurance companies.  Obamacare (ACA) also delivers improved quality of life due to access to health care, unattainable for most Americans due to cost -- a significant benefit to society. Finally the most compelling argument for the ACA is our inability to call the United States the greatest country when our healthcare expenditures are the highest in the world and millions of our citizens lack basic insurance coverage.  The Affordable Care Act still needs revision, but it is a much needed improvement over the previous status quo.

Thanks to Elizabeth Eastmond for her edits.

During my freshman year at BYU, a conservative friend of mine tried to explain to me why recycling, and caring for the environment in general, were scripturally unsound practices. He cited the LDS Doctrine and Covenants Section 59 verses 16 to 19, which, in a nutshell, indicate that the Lord provided all of the natural things on the earth "for benefit and the use of man, both to please the eye and to gladden the heart; yea, for food and raiment." My friend’s attitude was that if the earth and all the things on it are for our benefit, why bother to protect the environment? He conveniently left out the next verse, which states, "for unto this end were they made to be used, with judgment, not to excess, neither by extortion." The scripture is clear: we are to be wise and reasonable stewards of our natural resources. George Handley, a professor at BYU, outlined several fundamental principles of environmental stewardship in LDS belief, which I won’t go into here, but are worth reviewing. Unfortunately, far too many people who claim to be Christians do not feel a duty to care for and protect the earth.

Read more

Post by Rob Taber

When I got married at the tender age of 22, I was politically informed, wanting to get more involved, and attracted to the good I saw in both major parties. Although I wanted something that fit with every single one of my Mormon values, I understood that both parties also had their drawbacks, and that the accomplishment of political good requires the building of diverse coalitions. My top priority: public policies that would help young people settle down and establish families. When I moved from Utah to Florida and the DMV asked for my party registration, I told them "Republican."

Being a Latter-day Saint in mid-00s, I watched the career of Governor Mitt Romney with great interest. And I was absolutely fascinated with MassCare. Using the power of the free market to help everyone get insurance while also guaranteeing a basic level of access to medical care, supported by Mitt Romney and Ted Kennedy? This will help families, not just those starting out, but all families. Go Governor Romney!

As the 2008 primaries got underway (in 2007...) I looked for someone on the Democrat side who looked like they would approach health care with the same pragmatism and grip on reality. I eventually settled on that new senator from Illinois with the funny name, and I sent off for the bumper stickers seen above: one on the right, and one on the left. (Much to the amused bewilderment of my neighbors and ward members for some time to come.)

Fast forward: Gov. Romney lost his primary. But that guy from Illinois won the general election, and then he did an interesting thing: he took the basic structure of Gov. Romney's plan (originally developed by the far-right Heritage Foundation) and turned it into a system for the whole nation. I was overjoyed: my wife and I would always, always be able to purchase health insurance, the options would be clearly laid out, and all plans would include basic care: all crucial things for families.

And like any policy proposal, the opposing side (in this case, the congressional Republicans) had issues with the law, but instead of working to make it better, they fought it, and continue to fight it. Despite all the campaign talk about strengthening and defending families, Republicans in Congress and in Washington are trying to break one of the biggest things that will help mothers and fathers raise their kids, work, and provide.

And then this week. Oh, boy. Top Republicans have unveiled their plans . . . not for campaigning against the law, or making it better, but doing what they can to make it fail. Reuters reports:

"With the Obama administration poised for a huge public education campaign on healthcare reform, Republicans and their allies are mobilizing a counter-offensive including town hall meetings, protests and media promotions to dissuade uninsured Americans from obtaining health coverage."

"Dissuade uninsured Americans from obtaining health coverage." Wow. I have issues with how health insurance is generally run, and the new law doesn't fix everything I see wrong, but to actively tell people not to buy the insurance that will help them stay healthy or recover when they're sick or injured . . . As a historian, it's easy for me to get cynical as so much of what happens is a repeat of things that have happened in the past, but this, this is a new one.

Men and women in their 20s hear a lot about how they need to settle down, marry, and have kids, and generally speaking, this is what many of them want to do. The main reason many of my fellow youngsters don't: jobs are tough to come by right now, by which I mean real jobs with benefits, ones where a parent can earn enough to support a family. This is a crisis for small-c conservatism, where family formation and the continuance of society into the next generation is (I'm pretty sure) priority number 1. So what's FreedomWorks, that bastion of right-wing activity doing?

"The group is designing a symbolic 'Obamacare card' that college students can burn during campus protests."

I ended my membership in the Republican Party a few years ago, and even though I'm chairing an organization called LDS Democrats of America, I still want our representatives and thinkers in both parties spending their time working on supporting families and individuals and making our communities stronger. I had some hope, with the Senate taking a commonsense approach to immigration a few weeks ago, that we were getting there. Looks like we've still got a ways to go.

 

Post by Rob Taber

"Daddy, what are they doing to that guy's heart?"

In our booth at the local Wendy's, there for our monthly lunch date, my preschooling daughter pointed at a spot in the book in front of us. A cartoon Mexica priest held a fresh heart over a war captive, chest open and still dripping blood.

This situation was one of my own making. Trips to Wendy's went well with stops at the city library, and between classmates' birthday parties and my own laziness, we made it to the library about once a month. This particular Saturday, library came before lunch, and I had decided to grab an extra nonfiction book for us to peruse together. Unbeknownst to the kid, for several months I've been adding a book or two a trip, intended to give her an initial grounding in world history (an idea picked up from a homeschooling curriculum I once read). The kiddy atlas of ancient civilizations seemed like a good supplement. And my child, in time, reached the page on Mesoamerica, with its depiction of human sacrifice. As a historian of the early Latin America, my answer for her included the fact that people in other parts of the world at the time, including Europe, did just as savage things for equally serious, self-righteous reasons--a point Montaigne made some 433 years ago in his "On Cannibals."

Educating young'uns--ever an endeavor.

Mormons are big on education. Scripture tells us to "seek . . . out of the best books words of wisdom; seek learning, even by study and also by faith." This learning includes "things both in heaven and in the earth, and under the earth; things which have been, things which are, things which must shortly come to pass; things which are at home, [and] things which are abroad." We're charged to seek after "anything virtuous, lovely, or of good report or praiseworthy." Even when it comes to listening for answers to prayers, we're taught to "study it out" in our minds before asking God what's right.

We Mormons have also been talking about education a lot this last week, discussing the best approach to education in our local schools as Utah debates whether to move ahead with Common Core and a legislator (backed by a polished campaign) proposed doing away with all state school attendance requirements for children and teens. Then, Sunday morning, the New York Times published a front page article about Latter-day Saints who undergo faith crises when they find information online that contradicts the history they got in Sunday school. It's led to eloquent responses from McKay Coppins and Joanna Brooks.

McKay tells his story about finding information online at 13 that troubled him, and his parents' willingness to talk with him and hear him out.

Joanna notes, rightly, that all of the NYT's published anecdotes come from men, and that many of the women who struggle, struggle with squaring Church customs and practices with a belief in a God who is merciful and just, and seek for answers to their questions.

Both Joanna and McKay have a different approach towards their personal faith than they did as children. So do I, and so do, I suspect, most of us.

Which, by way of this Slate essay, brings me back to public education.

Educating children, ultimately, is about getting them ready to leave the nest, and having faith that what we provide them will be of some help later on. Facts are useful. Learning how to sift through information, weigh different facts, find answers, ask questions, find deeper answers, and then communicate those findings--that's even more useful. My mom taught English and Mathematics in elementary and secondary schools early in her career. Growing frustrated with the never-ending barrage of silver bullets designed to make the next generation absolutely brilliant (or perfect employees, depending), she found in grad school a question that captivated her for the rest of her life: how, exactly, do children learn math? And how do we build into this to introduce mathematical concepts in a way that helps them get it? Being one of my mom's guinea pigs when I was young gave me a decent foundation in math for a person inclined towards the humanities. Watching her complete her doctorate during my early school years has provided innumerable lessons as I squeeze dissertation writing around making sure the kid is fed, clothed, read to, and put to bed at a reasonable hour.

If faith is "the evidence of things hoped for, the substance of things not seen," then I have a deep abiding faith that some educational techniques work better than others. Florida's "school grades" system has deep, troubling issues, and I've found that whenever there's a prescription for school reform, a salesperson is never far behind. But as my kid officially enters the state school system next month via Florida's voluntary pre-kindergarten program, I'll be doing what I can to support a school system that provides a common core to all, that respects teachers as highly-trained professionals, and helps parents understand and fulfill their responsibilities. And whatever happens, I'll keep lightly guiding my dear daughter towards lessons on flexible thinking and comparative ritual violence.

I recently read the July 2012 posting on the Mormon Liberals website titled “Ezra Taft Benson and Politics”. The purpose of the following isn’t to re-hash that post; the author did a remarkable job researching this piece and I would recommend you click the link and read it yourself.

My main purpose is to see what we might learn from the life of this Latter-day apostle and how we might apply these lessons to our own lives.

I must start with my personal opinion that he was a great man. Any Latter-day Saint who has read the account of his remarkable humanitarian mission to Europe after World War II, or who can trace their daily study of the Book of Mormon to President Benson’s emphasis on this book of scripture, or whose lives were changed by his landmark sermon on pride, will agree with me on this.

A healthy respect for great men and women recognizes that none of us are perfect. The story of Peter is inextricably bound up with the heartbreaking account in the scriptures of his denials of the Savior the night before his crucifixion – but this account strengthens our love for Peter rather than diminishes it.

Such is the case with Ezra Taft Benson during the decade of the sixties. The historical record is quite clear on the facts. An understandable fear of Communism during the early days of the Cold War resulted in Elder Benson becoming over-zealous in publicizing his personal political opinions. This over-zealousness resulted in strained relations with several of the senior members in the Quorum of the Twelve and First Presidency, hurt feelings among many Latter-day Saints who did not agree with his opinions, and lost opportunities to counsel the Saints on important gospel subjects rather than politics. The historical record contains many instances of frustration of senior Church leaders during this period with Elder Benson, and his refusal to moderate his public remarks about politics. The First Presidency statement in January 1963 is but one of many examples. In this statement, they repudiated those who would claim the Church was aligned with the John Birch Society or “any extreme ideologies”, and while affirming their opposition to communism, stated “they who pretend to fight it by casting aspersions on our elected officers or other fellow citizens do the anti-communist cause a great disservice.”

Elder Benson’s refusal to follow counsel from his senior brethren has left an unfortunate and unforeseen legacy. It is well known that others in Church leadership disagreed with Elder Benson’s political views; Hugh B. Brown, Harold B. Lee and N. Eldon Tanner being among the most frequently mentioned. But since the other Brethren followed the counsel not to preach politics from the pulpit and Elder Benson did not, just reading General Conference talks from this period could give the mistaken impression that Elder Benson’s political ideology did, in fact, reflect Church doctrinal beliefs. Probably the most unfortunate consequence of this, as described in the above noted blog, was after the death of President David O. McKay. Some misguided political disciples of Elder Benson distributed petitions encouraging Latter-day Saints to vote no on the elevation of “socialist” Joseph Fielding Smith as Prophet and holding out for the advancement of Elder Benson over his more senior brethren.

One interesting question is this: Elder Benson as a member of the Quorum of the Twelve chafed at the restrictions against publicly preaching his political views. But after he became President of the Church, the preaching of politics was replaced by the important gospel doctrines that have become his legacy. Why? As we all hopefully do, President Benson matured and gained wisdom over the years. More importantly, if one believes in the principle of revelation to modern prophets, as I do, one is left with the unavoidable conclusion that his Priesthood Leader at the time instructed him to speak of other subjects. Earlier I mentioned President Benson’s landmark sermon on pride. I am confident that if given the opportunity, Ezra Taft Benson the Prophet would have counseled Elder Benson the Apostle twenty years earlier:

“Pride is a damning sin in the true sense of that word. It limits or stops progression. The proud are not easily taught. They won’t change their minds to accept truths, because to do so implies they have been wrong…We can choose to humble ourselves by receiving counsel and chastisement.”

So to the question: What can we learn from this? Even great men like Ezra Taft Benson can be temporarily decoyed into putting the things of this world above the basic principles of the Gospel. When that happens, our ability to have influence as disciples of Christ is diminished. All we who are passionate about politics, whether conservative or liberal, need to keep this important lesson in mind. If devotion to political ideology begins to rise above our devotion to the teachings of Christ and the Restored Gospel, we need to recognize and put aside our pride, as President Benson would have counseled us, and hit the reset button on our lives.

It’s a shame that many of President Benson’s modern political disciples have learned the wrong lesson from his life. To them, I would simply say: You are dishonoring a great man and a prophet of God when you attempt to intermingle his political views with his wise and timeless counsel on the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

We all owe a debt of gratitude to our country’s Founding Fathers. Their drive and tenacity put into place the longest surviving constitutional republic in the world. The Constitution is nothing short of inspired; stitched together through compromise and collective experience. I do not believe it is chance that such an extraordinary group of individuals were able to set aside their vast differences and create a common document. I also believe that today’s presidents are equally inspired and have a deep commitment to the progress of our nation.

Read more

Today brought a conversation that many of my fellow LDS Democrats hear on a regular basis.  Midway into the morning I received a phone call from my wife who was clearly energized by her subject, and began to inform me of an organized petition that a church member asked her to sign.  Here is our conversation:

"Some people in the church are trying to stop Obamacare."

"Really? How is that possible?"

"I don't know, they want me to sign a petition, and if they get enough signatures, they can overturn Governor Jan Brewer."

"Who is arranging this? Did you ask what the petition does?"

"Somebody from the Stake (a large congregation in the Mormon church). I guess they are asking members to sign a petition which they are saying will stop the expansion of Obamacare."

"Ahhh.  They are trying to stop the expansion of Medicaid. They want to overturn Governor Brewer's decision to accept federal funds for Medicaid.  Go ahead and sign."

"What? I thought you would be upset. You want me to sign?!"

"Sure. If Arizona wants to cut off its nose to spite its face...well...it's not the first time."

Now, after researching the petition my wife politely declined her signature and explained the benefits of expanding Medicaid and the cost savings of lowering the number of uninsured.  I am sure her friend was perturbed.  I am sure she was surprised that any rational individual would not agree that Obamacare was a destructive force conjured up by a misguided man in order to decay our healthcare system. So to her, the members of the Greenfield-Gilbert Stake, my fellow Arizonans, and any state opting out of Medicaid expansion I write the following:

Rejecting the expansion of Medicaid in Arizona will hurt our residents and negatively impact our budget.  In brokering Obamacare, the Federal Government has accepted the increased financial burden by covering 93% of the incremental state costs. We will see significant savings from uninsured liabilities which will offset our obligation to the Medicaid expansion.  Even more importantly, we will be covering thousands of our uninsured, whose choice to work negates eligibility for Medicaid.  We will create jobs in the healthcare industry and expand access to preventive services (tests for high blood pressure, diabetes, and high cholesterol, cancer screenings, counseling to help people lose weight, quit smoking or reduce alcohol use, routine vaccinations, flu and pneumonia shots, etc).

Currently across the US, states rejecting Medicaid expansion will lose out on $8.4 billion in federal funding, exclude coverage for 3.6 million uninsured, and see $1 billion more in uncompensated spending. Obamacare will not raise taxes on 95% of Americans and will realize $18 billion a year in savings with less uninsured.  Medicaid expansion also requires that doctors receive the same compensation as Medicare patients (currently Medicaid pays less). If all states participate twenty-one million Americans will see their rates decline.  Obamacare is also completely paid for; it will not add a single dime to our national deficit.

Now my Arizonan friends, don't naively suggest that our state does not need federal money. Arizona is one of several states that receives more that it pays in taxes.  Currently the federal government returns $1.20 for every $1 we pay.  In fact, over the past 20 years Arizonans have paid $424 billion in taxes and received $629 billion in Federal benefits.  We also took money from Obama's stimulus package when our budgets were in complete disarray saving police, fire, and teacher employment.  With as much as our state has been given it appears borderline hypocritical to limit access to healthcare for the working poor needing help.  The status quo is unacceptable and though not perfect, Obamacare is a step in the right direction for our great state and nation.
----------------------------------------------------------------

***I do not believe the Mormon Church is organizing opposition to Obamacare, but it is the isolated action of a few misguided members. The Mormon Church handbook is clear that "stake presidents and other local leaders should not organize members to participate in political matters or attempt to influence how they participate...Church leaders and members should also avoid statements or conduct that might be interpreted as Church endorsement of any political party, platform, policy, or candidate."