The only reason I voted for the amendment (which affirmed that "marriage" is defined as a covenant between a man and a woman) is that a vote against it affirmed "gay" marriage. Which I don't.
Confusing? It's really not.
You see, I believe (and judging from the arguments for and con, I'm the only one in the world) that marriage is a sacrament and a covenant in the most faith-full meaning of those terms. And it's not just between a man and a woman -- it's between a man, a woman, and God.
You see, I'm such an extremist that I don't believe a man and a woman have a "marriage" unless God is included. That's a union, if it's just you two.
Oh, I know all those arguments about marriage and family being the base of the structure of society and I believe that too -- I just don't think that's as important as the sacrament of marriage.
As a Christian I believe homosexuality is wrong. I also believe it's my responsibility as a Christian to tell a homosexual that s/he is living what the Bible calls an abomination. Beyond that, it's none of my business.
If you want to join in a union with someone of your own sex, that's your problem. I have no objection to you doing so and to you having all the health benefits, legal benefits and whatever other benefits and legalities the state can impose on you.
Just don't call it "marriage." Because it isn't. And if you call your union a "marriage" you are defiling the sacrament that my marriage is simply because you're assuming that what I have is like what you have.
It isn't.
What I have is a committment to my husband and to God to love, honor, obey (yes, obey -- we both promise to obey GOD and respect each other).
You see, I have what has turned out to be a unique vision of marriage because not even my church defines it that way. But I believe that's how God defines it and that's what my marriage means to me. It is something sacred and lovely -- something that is defiled when someone assumes it is like a homosexual union.
So actually I would have voted against the Kansas marriage amendment to give "gay" couples all the legal rights and privileges they want if doing so had not indicated that I approve of and support those kinds of relationships.
Sunday, April 10
Friday, April 8
We Can Save Darfur
While we're figuring out who we are we still have a moral obligation to find a way to help people who are starving and who are being tortured and murdered.
Although the UN has a world food program, recent scandals should make us look carefully at that organization and possibly re-think our role with it.
It would seem that the quickest and most effective thing to do (short of invading Darfur and taking over the government) is an arms embargo and/or sanctions. The effectiveness of those measures is historically questionable and with Russia, China, Pakistan and Arabian governments supporting the Arab regime, it seems as though sanctions and embargos would simply be empty gestures.
There are two measures that Sen. Brownback and Sen. Corzine suggest to begin: urge Secretary of State Rice to travel to Darfur and to support the Darfur Accountability Act:
PS. Further background information and letter-writing suggestions are available at this site online.
Although the UN has a world food program, recent scandals should make us look carefully at that organization and possibly re-think our role with it.
It would seem that the quickest and most effective thing to do (short of invading Darfur and taking over the government) is an arms embargo and/or sanctions. The effectiveness of those measures is historically questionable and with Russia, China, Pakistan and Arabian governments supporting the Arab regime, it seems as though sanctions and embargos would simply be empty gestures.
There are two measures that Sen. Brownback and Sen. Corzine suggest to begin: urge Secretary of State Rice to travel to Darfur and to support the Darfur Accountability Act:
Approximately one year ago, many of us in the United States began to learn of the atrocities being committed in the Darfur region of Sudan. In June of 2004, the U.S. Congress labeled these acts genocide, international observers began investigating, and aid agencies began received more funds for their relief efforts. Many thought that would be the end of the crisis.
Sadly this was not the case. In January of this year the International Commission of Inquiry on Darfur completed their mandate. In their report to the Secretary General, they found that ". . .the impact of the attacks on civilians shows that the use of military force was manifestly disproportionate to any threat posed by the rebels," and were "particularly alarmed that attacks on villages, killing of civilians, rape, pillaging and forced displacement have continued during the course of the Commission’s mandate." While they have yet to find sufficient evidence to use the legal term "genocide" in describing the violence, they concluded "international offences such as the crimes against humanity and war crimes that have been committed in Darfur may be no less serious and heinous than genocide."
How many times have we heard "never again" — in reference to the Holocaust, the Khmer Rouge, Rwanda? Well over 300,000 people are believed to have died as a result of the warfare. Millions have been displaced from their homes, and now face disease, lack of basic necessities, and often the pain and stigma of sexual abuse. And yet even in this late day we are not powerless to act, to help a desperate people avoid further atrocities and the suffering of refugee life.
On March 2nd, Senator John Corzine of New Jersey introduced the Darfur Accountability Act of 2005 to the Senate. This bill would reinforce the American position that genocide is being committed; further, it would seek passage in the United Nations Security Council of measures that would, among other provisions:
Place targeted sanctions on the Government of Sudan and key individuals;
Create a "no-fly zone" over Darfur;
Try suspected perpetrators of crimes against humanity through an international tribunal;
Expand the African Union peacekeeping forces.
We, individual members of the United Religions Initiative (URI), ask that you contact your Senators today and ask them to support swift passage of the Darfur Accountability Act and to support holding trials for crimes against humanity at the International Criminal Court. We also suggest that your interfaith organizations and faith groups sign on to the Darfur Unity Statement (www.savedarfur.org), as we have asked the URI Global Council to consider at the next opportunity. Finally, we ask that you support the work of the many aid groups working throughout Sudan, and that you pass this letter on to your organizations’ membership, your friends, and colleagues.
On behalf of the Darfur Action Group,
Stephen A. Fuqua
Editor, InterfaithNews.Net
PS. Further background information and letter-writing suggestions are available at this site online.
Thursday, April 7
Who ARE We, Anyway?
So now we have determined -- or more accurately the Florida courts have decided -- that not everyone who is alive has the right to life guaranteed by the US Constitution.
When you think of it, that's pretty consistent with the rest of the world. We like to think that we in America are special, that we value life and liberty. Lately we've taken pride in freeing the oppressed and giving them what we now call God's gift of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. We congratulate ourselves on freeing the Iraqi people; we point to Bosnia, Croatia and Hertzogovinia with a certain pride while we ignore genocide in Africa. We remember Somalia.
The situation in Darfur is intolerable to people who value life and claim to defend the innocent and the helpless. In a nutshell it's fairly simple: The Muslim government and militia are systematically torturing and killing the African population.
The early history of the area is a story of sultans, wars and rulers and the Kingdom of Darfar. Islam came into the region in the 1300s. Egypt ruled it for a while until the British came in 1879 and re-established the original ruling family. In 1916 the rulers of the area joined the Ottoman Empire to take up arms against the British -- and lost. The sultan was killed and Darfur became part of British-ruled Sudan. In 1956, it became independent with the rest of the Sudan.
In 2003, two rebel groups, the Sudanese Liberation Army and the Justice and Equality Movement took up arms against the Arab government. In response, the government mounted a campaign of aerial bombardment supporting ground attacks by an Arab militia, the Janjaweed.
The government-supported Janjaweed raped, looted and killed residents of the non-Arab population of Darfur. They burn down whole villages and drive the survivors into refugee camps. Then they surround the camps. By last summer 80,000 people had died and a million were refugees. The UN and NATO have declared the area in a major humanitarian crisis.
US assistance so far this year is $344,944,264.00. Obviously money isn't solving the problem since we've spent $603,389,944.00 since 2003. Human rights agencies have set up medical facilities and are offering help as fast as they can and the genocide continues.
Obviously the only way to solve the problem is to get rid of the government and the militia. The people of Darfur don't want them; they tried unsuccessfully to throw them out and initiated the problem.
So is it time for the US to go into Darfur? There's plenty of precedent and this morning, two American senators, Sen. Brownback (R-KS) and Sen. Corzine (D-NJ), appeared on C-Span and called for Americans to wake up. You can see their segment HERE.
If we are to be consistent in stopping genocide it would seem that sending troops to Darfur would be the thing to do. Senators Brownback and Corzine say they just need about 20,000 troops to protect the villagers. But how would that work? How would we know which villages would be attacked and when? And what good does it do to put troops in harm's way without the goal of fixing the problem for once and all?
There are complicating factors. Allies of the Arab Darfur government include the Chinese, the Russians and Pakistan. Finding ourselves in a position to irritate Pakistan is particularly awkward now, when they are helping (such as it is) with our operations in Afghanistan and Iraq. This is hardly the time to put that already somewhat shaky alliance in jeopardy.
So what do we do? Turn our backs on genocide? We did that in WWII and wound up fighting a World War that led us to atomic weapons. We did that in the Sudan just a few years ago, regretted it and vowed never again.
When we have stopped genocide, we have seen good results. When we have ignored it, the problems escalated and more people suffered and died.
So who has a right to life? Do any of us? It's nice of the Constitution to offer it, but is it realistic? It should be. But is it? Is the only life we truly value our own, with maybe those we love included if things don't get too difficult? What is our responsibility to the world? Or do we have any? What about the UN and NATO?
By ignoring the plight of Darfur are we international Michael Schiavos and Attorney Feroses? We're doing exactly the same thing to millions of people that we did to Terri Schiavo.
Who ARE we, anyway?
When you think of it, that's pretty consistent with the rest of the world. We like to think that we in America are special, that we value life and liberty. Lately we've taken pride in freeing the oppressed and giving them what we now call God's gift of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. We congratulate ourselves on freeing the Iraqi people; we point to Bosnia, Croatia and Hertzogovinia with a certain pride while we ignore genocide in Africa. We remember Somalia.
The situation in Darfur is intolerable to people who value life and claim to defend the innocent and the helpless. In a nutshell it's fairly simple: The Muslim government and militia are systematically torturing and killing the African population.
The early history of the area is a story of sultans, wars and rulers and the Kingdom of Darfar. Islam came into the region in the 1300s. Egypt ruled it for a while until the British came in 1879 and re-established the original ruling family. In 1916 the rulers of the area joined the Ottoman Empire to take up arms against the British -- and lost. The sultan was killed and Darfur became part of British-ruled Sudan. In 1956, it became independent with the rest of the Sudan.
In 2003, two rebel groups, the Sudanese Liberation Army and the Justice and Equality Movement took up arms against the Arab government. In response, the government mounted a campaign of aerial bombardment supporting ground attacks by an Arab militia, the Janjaweed.
The government-supported Janjaweed raped, looted and killed residents of the non-Arab population of Darfur. They burn down whole villages and drive the survivors into refugee camps. Then they surround the camps. By last summer 80,000 people had died and a million were refugees. The UN and NATO have declared the area in a major humanitarian crisis.
US assistance so far this year is $344,944,264.00. Obviously money isn't solving the problem since we've spent $603,389,944.00 since 2003. Human rights agencies have set up medical facilities and are offering help as fast as they can and the genocide continues.
Obviously the only way to solve the problem is to get rid of the government and the militia. The people of Darfur don't want them; they tried unsuccessfully to throw them out and initiated the problem.
So is it time for the US to go into Darfur? There's plenty of precedent and this morning, two American senators, Sen. Brownback (R-KS) and Sen. Corzine (D-NJ), appeared on C-Span and called for Americans to wake up. You can see their segment HERE.
If we are to be consistent in stopping genocide it would seem that sending troops to Darfur would be the thing to do. Senators Brownback and Corzine say they just need about 20,000 troops to protect the villagers. But how would that work? How would we know which villages would be attacked and when? And what good does it do to put troops in harm's way without the goal of fixing the problem for once and all?
There are complicating factors. Allies of the Arab Darfur government include the Chinese, the Russians and Pakistan. Finding ourselves in a position to irritate Pakistan is particularly awkward now, when they are helping (such as it is) with our operations in Afghanistan and Iraq. This is hardly the time to put that already somewhat shaky alliance in jeopardy.
So what do we do? Turn our backs on genocide? We did that in WWII and wound up fighting a World War that led us to atomic weapons. We did that in the Sudan just a few years ago, regretted it and vowed never again.
When we have stopped genocide, we have seen good results. When we have ignored it, the problems escalated and more people suffered and died.
So who has a right to life? Do any of us? It's nice of the Constitution to offer it, but is it realistic? It should be. But is it? Is the only life we truly value our own, with maybe those we love included if things don't get too difficult? What is our responsibility to the world? Or do we have any? What about the UN and NATO?
By ignoring the plight of Darfur are we international Michael Schiavos and Attorney Feroses? We're doing exactly the same thing to millions of people that we did to Terri Schiavo.
Who ARE we, anyway?
Wednesday, April 6
The Naysayers' Objections
Critics say the national sales tax proposal is doomed.
Retailers oppose the idea because they don't want to become the nation's tax collectors. What those retailers don't want to understand is that the tax collection process is already in place. Instead of paying employee taxes, social security taxes and other business taxes, they just collect and pay a sales tax on new items only. It's much easier to figure than what they're doing now.
Democrats don't like it because they say it hurts lower-income workers. SOME Democrats SAY they don't like it. They don't like it because they perceive that it's a Republican policy (it isn't -- it's bipartisan). Those Democrats haven't listened long enough to comprehend that the impoverished will get a monthly income check so that they don't pay any tax at all. But hey, the poor might be able to get ahead that way -- Democrats would rather keep them down so they'll have someone to "rescue."
Low-wage earners spend most, if not all, of their income on basic necessities and a few nonessential items and so most, if not all, of their income would effectively be taxed under a sales tax-only scheme. EXCEPT for the rebate -- $178 per month per person for everyone with a valid social security number.
The rich, on the hand, arguably buy more and so would pay more taxes in absolute dollars, but not as a percentage of their overall income. The rich buy more expensive things than the average person, from cars and homes to clothes and entertainment. So they'll pay more tax -- but they have more money, so they can afford it. Besides, in a sense they'll be subsidizing the poor, who can't afford to pay as much. But the rich, too, get the $178 per person per month rebate.
President Bush has said he wants a revamped income tax system that preserves charitable giving and home ownership incentives, both of which are now embedded in the current code. Being able to spend one's entire paycheck however one chooses is the best incentive imaginable for buying a home. People buy homes for a huge variety of reasons from the freedom to paint and garden to saving money by building equity -- those things would happen with the FairTax.
As for charitable giving, it would get the government out of that. Charities would much prefer money with no strings attached and churches have learned that the more money people have to spend, the more generous they are in their giving.
Despite the heavy opposition, even skeptics are loathe to underestimate the "Fair Tax" -- or some variation of it.
After all, notes Chris Edwards, the director of tax policy studies at the Cato Institute, the libertarian think tank: "Social Security reform started off 20 years ago as a radical, loony idea."
Retailers oppose the idea because they don't want to become the nation's tax collectors. What those retailers don't want to understand is that the tax collection process is already in place. Instead of paying employee taxes, social security taxes and other business taxes, they just collect and pay a sales tax on new items only. It's much easier to figure than what they're doing now.
Democrats don't like it because they say it hurts lower-income workers. SOME Democrats SAY they don't like it. They don't like it because they perceive that it's a Republican policy (it isn't -- it's bipartisan). Those Democrats haven't listened long enough to comprehend that the impoverished will get a monthly income check so that they don't pay any tax at all. But hey, the poor might be able to get ahead that way -- Democrats would rather keep them down so they'll have someone to "rescue."
Low-wage earners spend most, if not all, of their income on basic necessities and a few nonessential items and so most, if not all, of their income would effectively be taxed under a sales tax-only scheme. EXCEPT for the rebate -- $178 per month per person for everyone with a valid social security number.
The rich, on the hand, arguably buy more and so would pay more taxes in absolute dollars, but not as a percentage of their overall income. The rich buy more expensive things than the average person, from cars and homes to clothes and entertainment. So they'll pay more tax -- but they have more money, so they can afford it. Besides, in a sense they'll be subsidizing the poor, who can't afford to pay as much. But the rich, too, get the $178 per person per month rebate.
President Bush has said he wants a revamped income tax system that preserves charitable giving and home ownership incentives, both of which are now embedded in the current code. Being able to spend one's entire paycheck however one chooses is the best incentive imaginable for buying a home. People buy homes for a huge variety of reasons from the freedom to paint and garden to saving money by building equity -- those things would happen with the FairTax.
As for charitable giving, it would get the government out of that. Charities would much prefer money with no strings attached and churches have learned that the more money people have to spend, the more generous they are in their giving.
Despite the heavy opposition, even skeptics are loathe to underestimate the "Fair Tax" -- or some variation of it.
After all, notes Chris Edwards, the director of tax policy studies at the Cato Institute, the libertarian think tank: "Social Security reform started off 20 years ago as a radical, loony idea."
GOD is in the details, not the devil
This quote always makes me angry. "As Mark Luscombe, the principal federal tax analyst for CCH Incorporated, points out: 'The devil is always in the details.'" This is a quote our "intellectual" liberals use constantly without knowing what the quote actually is and where it began.
A very famous architect named Eero Saarinen, who designed the St. Louis arch among other things, said "God is in the details," speaking of architectural design. I deeply, deeply resent that God has been dropped from the original quote in favor of the devil. That is, however, consistent with what Liberals prefer to do with anything religious or theological.
A very famous architect named Eero Saarinen, who designed the St. Louis arch among other things, said "God is in the details," speaking of architectural design. I deeply, deeply resent that God has been dropped from the original quote in favor of the devil. That is, however, consistent with what Liberals prefer to do with anything religious or theological.
Poll-takers: No rush on Social Security
This isn't a huge poll, but it's as valid as those run by the media.
That sounds like what I'm hearing in talking to voters. The income tax problem needs to be fixed now, they say, and take care of social security later.
Of course installing the FairTax would solve the problem -- it would make social security stable so that the older generation doesn't have to depend on the younger!
President Bush's plans for overhauling Social Security aren't faring too well among respondents to an online poll that U.S. Rep. Jo Bonner, R-Mobile, began taking earlier this month. As of Friday morning, well over 100 people had answered at least part of the survey, which can be found on Bonner's congressional Web site: www.house.gov/bonner.
Some 69 percent "strongly oppose" Bush's proposal to let younger workers divert part of their payroll taxes into private accounts. They are also not in any rush to address the program's financial difficulties, despite a new report by Social Security's trustees saying the system will begin paying out more in benefits than it receives in taxes by 2017, a year earlier than previously forecast. In reply to another question, more than four-fifths agreed that "Social Security isn't in a crisis, this can wait until later."
Respondents showed more enthusiasm for overhauling the federal tax code, another presidential priority. Despite several rounds of tax cuts since Bush took office, more than three-fifths said they are paying more in federal taxes now than four years ago. Seventy-two percent support major changes or a complete overhaul of the tax code. Of that group, more than half favor a national sales tax that would replace the federal income tax and, incidentally, eliminate the need for the Internal Revenue Service."
That sounds like what I'm hearing in talking to voters. The income tax problem needs to be fixed now, they say, and take care of social security later.
Of course installing the FairTax would solve the problem -- it would make social security stable so that the older generation doesn't have to depend on the younger!
Monday, April 4
Tax Cheats and the Commish
In a recent column titled "Tax cheaters seem to be prospering" in the Orlando Sentinel, Susan Strother Clark has a lot of fun at the expense of Mark Everson, Commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service. Seems the good Commissioner, who used an online tax service to prepare his income tax last year, turned over his tax information to a professional tax preparer this year.
"I felt like I'd just learned my dentist didn't floss or that the guy behind the Publix meat counter was a vegetarian," she writes, "And I never got to the bottom of why Everson took a pass this year, or whether even the IRS commissioner -- a former CPA -- finds the tax system too tough to navigate."
The reason she never got any further with this little discussion is that she and the good Commissioner got onto a discussion on tax evaders.
Tax evasion is a serious problem and guess who gets to pay more because our friends and neighbors refuse to pay their fair share.
Ms. Clarke continues,
See why we need the FairTax? It is fair -- everyone from the intentional tax cheat to the person who simply makes mistakes on his/her return to the drug dealer to the illegal immigrant to 60 million foreign tourists annually will all pay into the tax system. When everyone pays their fair share, everyone pays less!
I don't understand why everyone in this country isn't writing and calling their congress reps and senators begging them to sponsor HR 25 and S 25. This is the first thing that has come along in my political lifetime (that spans almost 50 years) that works for everyone, and to everyone's benefit -- even the entire US government.
It should be easy to get this passed and it would be, if only the people we elected to Congress actually cared about the people who elected them.
Check it out for yourself at www.fairtax. org. You'll be amazed -- and then go contact your Congresspeople and help us get this passed.
"I felt like I'd just learned my dentist didn't floss or that the guy behind the Publix meat counter was a vegetarian," she writes, "And I never got to the bottom of why Everson took a pass this year, or whether even the IRS commissioner -- a former CPA -- finds the tax system too tough to navigate."
The reason she never got any further with this little discussion is that she and the good Commissioner got onto a discussion on tax evaders.
And, whaddyaknow, they're pretty darned prevalent. A new IRS report, coming less than three weeks before the tax-filing deadline, shows that more than $250 billion in taxes was uncollected by the government in 2001, the most recent year studied.
Massive as it is, the number would have been well over $300 billion were it not for a chunk of change that the IRS recovered.
Still, the stuff left on the table -- or more accurately, under it -- is enough to power the economies of Ireland and New Zealand, with plenty of juice left over for Costa Rica, too.
Tax evasion is a serious problem and guess who gets to pay more because our friends and neighbors refuse to pay their fair share.
Ms. Clarke continues,
Certainly, some of the shortfall cited by the IRS is from honest mistakes and confusion over the tax code. But the bulk of it? My money's behind purposeful misreporting corporations, which shorted the government of $30 billion, according to the report.
But the largest category is with regular people, those of big wealth and modest means, who fail to report what they earn.
'The individual income tax is the single largest source of uncollected money,' Everson said.
And, yep, some of them are the sorts that are, shall we say, a little generous with the deductions, claiming that 1975 Pinto was worth $10,000.
But a far larger problem exists with self-employed people who underreport income.
The commish stopped short of saying the IRS was going after small-business owners. A statement like that would fly in the face of the administration's professed love of entrepreneurs.
Still, there's no denying the stats: Business income among unincorporated outfits was the largest segment of underreported taxes, accounting for as much as $83 billion.
See why we need the FairTax? It is fair -- everyone from the intentional tax cheat to the person who simply makes mistakes on his/her return to the drug dealer to the illegal immigrant to 60 million foreign tourists annually will all pay into the tax system. When everyone pays their fair share, everyone pays less!
I don't understand why everyone in this country isn't writing and calling their congress reps and senators begging them to sponsor HR 25 and S 25. This is the first thing that has come along in my political lifetime (that spans almost 50 years) that works for everyone, and to everyone's benefit -- even the entire US government.
It should be easy to get this passed and it would be, if only the people we elected to Congress actually cared about the people who elected them.
Check it out for yourself at www.fairtax. org. You'll be amazed -- and then go contact your Congresspeople and help us get this passed.
American Media Just CAN'T Report the Truth
Zogby Poll: Americans Not in Favor of Starving Terri Schiavo
In spite of what all the American media reported, including Fox News, they got it wrong again with their skewed polls and slanted reporting.
I would be ashamed to be a reporter for a major news outlet today.
In spite of what all the American media reported, including Fox News, they got it wrong again with their skewed polls and slanted reporting.
Polls leading up to the death of Terri Schiavo made it appear Americans had formed a consensus in favor of ending her life. However, a new Zogby poll with fairer questions shows the nation clearly supporting Terri and her parents and wanting to protect the lives of other disabled patients.
The Zogby poll found that, if a person becomes incapacitated and has not expressed their preference for medical treatment, as in Terri's case, 43 percent say "the law presume that the person wants to live, even if the person is receiving food and water through a tube" while just 30 percent disagree.
Another Zogby question his directly on Terri's circumstances.
"If a disabled person is not terminally ill, not in a coma, and not being kept alive on life support, and they have no written directive, should or should they not be denied food and water," the poll asked.
A whopping 79 percent said the patient should not have food and water taken away while just 9 percent said yes.
"From the very start of this debate, Americans have sat on one of two sides," Concerned Women for America's Lanier Swann said in response to the poll. One side "believes Terri's life has worth and purpose, and the side who saw Michael Schiavo's actions as merciful, and appropriate."
More than three-fourths of Americans agreed, Swann said, "because a person is disabled, that patient should never be denied food and water."
The poll also lent support to members of Congress to who passed legislation seeking to prevent Terri's starvation death and help her parents take their lawsuit to federal courts.
"When there is conflicting evidence on whether or not a patient would want to be on a feeding tube, should elected officials order that a feeding tube be removed or should they order that it remain in place," respondents were asked.
Some 18 percent said the feeding tube should be removed and 42 percent said it should remain in place.
Swann said her group would encourage Congress to adopt legislation that would federal courts to review cases when the medical treatment desire of individuals is not known and the patient's family has a dispute over the care.
"According to these poll results, many Americans do in fact agree with what we're trying to accomplish," she said.
The poll found that 49 percent of Americans believe there should be exceptions to the right of a spouse to act as a guardian for an incapacitated spouse. Only 39 percent disagreed.
When asked directly about Terri's case and told the her estranged husband Michael "has had a girlfriend for 10 years and has two children with her" 56 percent of Americans believed guardianship should have been turned over to Terri's parents while 37 percent disagreed.
I would be ashamed to be a reporter for a major news outlet today.
Saturday, April 2
Doctors Profit from "Chemotherapy Concession"
Imagine sitting down with your doctor to receive the shocking news that you
have bone cancer and only a couple of years to live. Even worse, he tells you that your life expectancy will be considerably shorter unless you immediately begin an intensive round of chemotherapy.
Then imagine saying, "No thanks; no chemo for me," and going on to live for
well over a decade.
Against the odds, that's what happened to Michael Gearin-Tosh, a don of English literature at Oxford University. Mr. Gearin-Tosh's remarkable book, "Living Proof: A Medical Mutiny," in which he describes the rigorous nutritional regimen he used to control his cancer.
"Living Proof" is not an attack on chemotherapy use, but it offers a reminder that the need for chemotherapy should always be questioned because this harsh treatment is sometimes prescribed for cancers that simply don't respond to chemo. Why? The answer to that question uncovers a disturbing business aspect of chemotherapy that few patients ever get a glimpse of.
--------------------------------------------
Offsetting costs
--------------------------------------------
Cancer patients often receive chemotherapy drugs in the offices of their oncologists. This procedure, now fairly standard, was established in the early 90's to avoid the high costs of administering the drugs in a hospital. The wrinkle that makes this situation unique is that the oncologists purchase the drugs themselves and bill their patients. And the wrinkle that makes this situation a potential problem is that oncologists typically charge patients far higher amounts than they pay for the drugs. This practice is known as "chemotherapy concession."
The oncologists say they require the additional revenue from selling the drugs to offset the cost of special facilities and staff to administer the drugs. And because chemotherapy has become such a standard treatment, virtually all prescriptions for it are covered by insurance or Medicare, so the markups are generally not paid for by patients.
At face value, this would seem to be reasonable. But I'm sure you won't be surprised to find out there's much more to it than that.
--------------------------------------------
Everyone pays
--------------------------------------------
The problem with this "concession" system it that it perpetuates the use of chemotherapy - a problem that can be broken down into three distinct problems.
PROBLEM 1: Taxpayers are footing a large portion of the payout that goes to
oncologists.
According to the New York Times, the amount that the government pays may be more than $1 billion per year. That's $1 billion more than the actual cost of the drugs. This amount doesn't include the additional totals paid to doctors by insurance companies - totals for which there are no current estimates, although the chance is very good that the burden carried by insurance companies is at least equal to the amount carried by Medicare. And as we've often seen, when insurance claims rise, our insurance premiums follow.
The Times quotes Dr. Larry Norton, an oncologist and former president of the American society of Clinical Oncology, as saying that he and other doctors are just trying to "break even." Well, things are tough all over, but don't pass the hat just yet to help your local oncologist squeak by, because according the Medical Group Management Association, over the last ten years oncology has become one of the most lucrative fields of medical practice, largely due to the chemotherapy concession. By some estimates, two-thirds of a typical oncologist's total revenue comes from the concession.
--------------------------------------------
Research suffers
--------------------------------------------
PROBLEM 2: Because oncologists have a strong monetary incentive to prescribe
chemotherapy (after all, they're just "breaking even"), they are less likely to refer patients to clinical research exploring possible cancer cures and less abrasive therapies.
Natural Health Line recently interviewed Nicholas Gonzalez, M.D. - a clinical researcher who has treated cancer with nutrition for many years. When Dr. Gonzalez was recruiting patients for a federally funded study of a cancer treatment based on a nutrition regimen, enrollment in the trial was complicated by the fact that many oncologists were reluctant to refer patients and lose the revenue that the chemotherapy concession would bring.
--------------------------------------------
Hard to justify
--------------------------------------------
PROBLEM 3: The most important problem is the way chemotherapy concession affects the treatment of patients.
Two years ago, Ezekiel J. Emanuel, M.D. (an oncologist and bioethicist), presented the results of a study that examined the medical records of almost 8,000 cancer patients. Dr. Emanuel found that in cases where chemotherapy was administered in the final six months of life, ONE-THIRD of the patients suffered from cancers that are known to be unresponsive to chemotherapy!
In Dr. Emanuel's words, "providing chemotherapy to patients with unresponsive cancers is hard to justify."
I'd say that's putting it mildly.
Specific types of cancer that are not responsive to chemotherapy include: pancreatic, melanoma, hepatocellular, renal cell, and gallbladder. If you are diagnosed with one of these cancers and are prescribed chemotherapy, it's time for a second opinion.
have bone cancer and only a couple of years to live. Even worse, he tells you that your life expectancy will be considerably shorter unless you immediately begin an intensive round of chemotherapy.
Then imagine saying, "No thanks; no chemo for me," and going on to live for
well over a decade.
Against the odds, that's what happened to Michael Gearin-Tosh, a don of English literature at Oxford University. Mr. Gearin-Tosh's remarkable book, "Living Proof: A Medical Mutiny," in which he describes the rigorous nutritional regimen he used to control his cancer.
"Living Proof" is not an attack on chemotherapy use, but it offers a reminder that the need for chemotherapy should always be questioned because this harsh treatment is sometimes prescribed for cancers that simply don't respond to chemo. Why? The answer to that question uncovers a disturbing business aspect of chemotherapy that few patients ever get a glimpse of.
--------------------------------------------
Offsetting costs
--------------------------------------------
Cancer patients often receive chemotherapy drugs in the offices of their oncologists. This procedure, now fairly standard, was established in the early 90's to avoid the high costs of administering the drugs in a hospital. The wrinkle that makes this situation unique is that the oncologists purchase the drugs themselves and bill their patients. And the wrinkle that makes this situation a potential problem is that oncologists typically charge patients far higher amounts than they pay for the drugs. This practice is known as "chemotherapy concession."
The oncologists say they require the additional revenue from selling the drugs to offset the cost of special facilities and staff to administer the drugs. And because chemotherapy has become such a standard treatment, virtually all prescriptions for it are covered by insurance or Medicare, so the markups are generally not paid for by patients.
At face value, this would seem to be reasonable. But I'm sure you won't be surprised to find out there's much more to it than that.
--------------------------------------------
Everyone pays
--------------------------------------------
The problem with this "concession" system it that it perpetuates the use of chemotherapy - a problem that can be broken down into three distinct problems.
PROBLEM 1: Taxpayers are footing a large portion of the payout that goes to
oncologists.
According to the New York Times, the amount that the government pays may be more than $1 billion per year. That's $1 billion more than the actual cost of the drugs. This amount doesn't include the additional totals paid to doctors by insurance companies - totals for which there are no current estimates, although the chance is very good that the burden carried by insurance companies is at least equal to the amount carried by Medicare. And as we've often seen, when insurance claims rise, our insurance premiums follow.
The Times quotes Dr. Larry Norton, an oncologist and former president of the American society of Clinical Oncology, as saying that he and other doctors are just trying to "break even." Well, things are tough all over, but don't pass the hat just yet to help your local oncologist squeak by, because according the Medical Group Management Association, over the last ten years oncology has become one of the most lucrative fields of medical practice, largely due to the chemotherapy concession. By some estimates, two-thirds of a typical oncologist's total revenue comes from the concession.
--------------------------------------------
Research suffers
--------------------------------------------
PROBLEM 2: Because oncologists have a strong monetary incentive to prescribe
chemotherapy (after all, they're just "breaking even"), they are less likely to refer patients to clinical research exploring possible cancer cures and less abrasive therapies.
Natural Health Line recently interviewed Nicholas Gonzalez, M.D. - a clinical researcher who has treated cancer with nutrition for many years. When Dr. Gonzalez was recruiting patients for a federally funded study of a cancer treatment based on a nutrition regimen, enrollment in the trial was complicated by the fact that many oncologists were reluctant to refer patients and lose the revenue that the chemotherapy concession would bring.
--------------------------------------------
Hard to justify
--------------------------------------------
PROBLEM 3: The most important problem is the way chemotherapy concession affects the treatment of patients.
Two years ago, Ezekiel J. Emanuel, M.D. (an oncologist and bioethicist), presented the results of a study that examined the medical records of almost 8,000 cancer patients. Dr. Emanuel found that in cases where chemotherapy was administered in the final six months of life, ONE-THIRD of the patients suffered from cancers that are known to be unresponsive to chemotherapy!
In Dr. Emanuel's words, "providing chemotherapy to patients with unresponsive cancers is hard to justify."
I'd say that's putting it mildly.
Specific types of cancer that are not responsive to chemotherapy include: pancreatic, melanoma, hepatocellular, renal cell, and gallbladder. If you are diagnosed with one of these cancers and are prescribed chemotherapy, it's time for a second opinion.
Thursday, March 31
To Terri's Parents - THE ROSE STILL GROWS BEYOND THE WALL
Near a shady wall a rose once grew,
Budded and blossomed in God's free light,
Watered and fed by morning dew,
Shedding its sweetness day and night.
As it grew and blossomed fair and tall,
Slowly rising to loftier height,
It came to a crevice in the wall,
Through which there shone a beam of light.
Onward it crept with added strength,
With never a thought of fear or pride,
It followed the light through the crevice's length,
And unfolded itself on the other side.
The light, the dew, the broadening view
Were found the same as they were before;
And it lost itself in beauties new,
Breathing its fragrance more and more.
Shall claim of death cause us to grieve,
And make our courage faint or fail?
Nay! Let us faith and hope receive:
The rose still grows beyond the wall.
Scattering fragrance far and wide,
Just as it did in days of yore,
Just as it did on the other side,
Just as it will for evermore.
by A. L. Frink
Budded and blossomed in God's free light,
Watered and fed by morning dew,
Shedding its sweetness day and night.
As it grew and blossomed fair and tall,
Slowly rising to loftier height,
It came to a crevice in the wall,
Through which there shone a beam of light.
Onward it crept with added strength,
With never a thought of fear or pride,
It followed the light through the crevice's length,
And unfolded itself on the other side.
The light, the dew, the broadening view
Were found the same as they were before;
And it lost itself in beauties new,
Breathing its fragrance more and more.
Shall claim of death cause us to grieve,
And make our courage faint or fail?
Nay! Let us faith and hope receive:
The rose still grows beyond the wall.
Scattering fragrance far and wide,
Just as it did in days of yore,
Just as it did on the other side,
Just as it will for evermore.
by A. L. Frink
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)