Stop Calling it Socialism!

By Dennis McClatchey

We all have our little pet peeves.

For example, my wife goes bonkers when people seem to confuse a plural noun with a possessive noun. For example, you may see "the Smith's" when it should be "the Smiths." Unless, of course, the former is followed by the word "house" or "dog" or some other possession owned by the Smiths.

For me, I have always cringed at the incorrect pronunciation of the word, Zoology. It should be pronounced, zo-ol-o-gy. Not, zoo-ol-o-gy. Count the Os.

But I have a new irritant. And, it's driving me crazy. The word is socialism. And commentators on the left, right, and in the middle appear to have no idea as to what it means. Because I hear everything from Medicare to Social Security being labeled as such. And they are not, repeat not, examples of socialism. Not by a long shot.

Go to Webster, or any dictionary for that matter, and you will find a definition such as this. Socialism is "the theory or system of the ownership and operation of the means of production and distribution by society or community rather than by private individuals with all members of society or the community sharing in the work or products."

In other words, in modern political terms in order for an enterprise to be properly labeled as an example of socialism that enterprise must be owned and operated by the government.

In Great Britain, for example, the government owns the hospitals, employs the workers, purchases the supplies, and equipment. The doctors, nurses, allied health professionals, housekeepers, food service workers, janitors are all on the government payroll.

Great Britain has socialized medicine. America's medicine is not socialized. It is free enterprise.

There are exceptions such as hospitals run by the US Bureau of Veterans Affairs and county or city facilities operating to meet the needs of certain population groups such as the indigent.

We keep hearing the refrain from the right that "Obama Care" (the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act signed March 23, 2010) is a "government take over of our health care." 

As I see it, doctors are still practicing their varied specialties privately, and mostly as for- profit businesses. The hospitals remain private non- profit or for- profit institutions. The pharmaceutical companies, medical suppliers, durable medical equipment distributors continue to operate totally within the free market system.  And, insurance companies are still doing quite well, thank you, especially considering the truck load of new customers the Act will deliver them. Some government takeover.

Okay, the Act does add some new rules for these insurance companies.

The PPAC Act will immediately...

 Eliminate lifetime and unreasonable annual limits on benefits

 Prohibit rescissions of health insurance policies

 Provide assistance for those who are uninsured because of a pre-existing condition

 Require coverage of preventive services and immunizations

 Extend dependant coverage up to age 26

 Develop uniform coverage documents so consumers can make apples-to-apples comparisons when shopping for health insurance

 Cap insurance company non-medical, administrative expenditures

 Ensure consumers have access to an effective appeals process and provide consumers with a place to turn for assistance navigating the appeals process and accessing their coverage

 Create a temporary re-insurance program to support coverage for early retirees

 Establish an internet portal to assist Americans in identifying coverage options

 Facilitate administrative simplification to lower health system costs

Health Insurance Market Reform: Beginning in 2014, more significant insurance reforms will be implemented. Across individual and small group health insurance markets in all states, new rules will end medical underwriting and pre-existing condition exclusions. Insurers will be prohibited from denying coverage or setting rates based on health status, medical condition, claims experience, genetic information, evidence of domestic violence, or other health-related factors. Premiums will vary only by family structure, geography, actuarial value, tobacco use, participation in a health promotion program, and age.

So, that's "Obama Care" in a nut shell. Sound evil and un-American to you? No, doctors are not told how and where and when to practice medicine. There are no death panels. And, despite Rick Santorum's fear mongering to the contrary, citizens will not be forced to wear bracelets stating, "please do not euthanize me!" The program is simply designed to make health care more assessable and more affordable for all of us, regardless of our class.

You remember the Preamble to our Constitution, "...provide for the general welfare..."

Yes, the free market health care system remains alive and well. And, trust me, I'm a fan of capitalism. Really. Well, most of the time.

You see when the free market is working properly it operates in a mutually beneficial way. For example, say I'm in the widget selling business. I want people to purchase widgets from me, not my competitors. To do so I must price my widgets below all others. Or, I must produce a superior quality widget. Or, I must make the availability of my widgets easier to acquire. Or, I must be more effective in the promotion of my widgets.

But ultimately, my goal must be to satisfy my customers. If I satisfy my customers they will return to me for all their widget needs. And, if they are really happy they will tell their friends, and they will come to me as well. The relationship between the business enterprise and the customer is symbiotic.

However, the insurance business turns this model on its head. In order for the insurance company to generate a healthy bottom line, it must avoid paying out claims. The fewer claims paid, the better. That's why such companies are always finding ways to either deny a claim, refuse to cover certain high risk people, and generally looking for opportunities to weasel out of their coverage commitments. This is not a mutually beneficial exchange.

Now, it's one thing to weasel out of fixing a car fender or covering stolen property (as bad as that might be). It is something else when the denial can literally have life and death consequences. As I see it,  we as a society have a choice on the question of health care. We can either socialize it and remove the insurance companies altogether. Or, we can continue to allow the free market system to operate but with certain protections. And, that's what the Affordable Health Care Act does. But for some it is still way too much. And, I'll bet these folks are fully insured and are doing quite well.

But let us return to our discussion on socialism. I must admit, that even within our capitalistic free enterprise free market system there does lurk some institutions that can be accurately identified as representing the true meaning of the word, "socialism." Are you ready?

Libraries, fire departments, city-county-state-federal law enforcement agencies are all examples of this derided conceptual model.  And, I hope you would agree, that is as it should be.

Let's take law enforcement, for example. The purpose of a city police department is to reduce crime. This is done, in part, through the enforcement of the city's laws by responding to and investigating violations of those laws. More resources and the greatest priority, we would hope, would be placed on those crimes that are the most violent and harmful to the welfare of our community:  rapes, murders, assaults, arsons, etc. In order to evaluate the success of a particular police department we would track and report the city's crime rate over time paying particular attention to those crimes that are the most pernicious.

Now let's say this enterprise were to be outsourced to a private for-profit business. Now its purpose has been altered a bit. Now, the goal is to generate a profit through the enforcement and investigation of crime. But, in order to evaluate it as a business, we would be tracking profit and loss statements. And, our priorities would shift to those activities that generate the greatest revenue while requiring the fewest resources (which is the definition of efficiency a goal of all business ventures).

So, if the greatest efficiencies result from, let's say, speed traps, that's where the priorities would go. And, if there are lesser efficiencies in investigating rapes, well, sorry there's just not enough money in it so it becomes a back burner activity.

Now, I know no one is arguing for the privatizing of police departments. At least I hope not. My point is, there should be some activities, some enterprises that are so vital and important to the community at large that it should not be subject to the priorities and needs of the bottom line. And maybe, just maybe health care would fit such a category.

Yes, I know the majority of America's hospitals are run as not-for-profit charitable institutions. But, I also know-having spent 20 years working in this arena-that the same financial pressures apply. I have attended countless board meetings of said organizations and I can report that more time and attention by the boards was placed evaluating the profit and loss statements and reviewing the age of the accounts receivables of the hospital than any quality of care indicators.

This is not to say that non-profit board members are greedy and heartless. To the contrary. Some of the most caring, selfless, and giving people I have met were those I met serving on our hospital's boards. And, they dutifully give of themselves voluntarily. There is really nothing in it for them other than providing a service. It's just that most of them are business men and women. They feel more comfortable examining a balance sheet than infection rates or morbidity and mortality reports. That, they feel, should be left to those trained and educated on the clinical side of the ledger.

So, again,  the fiscal strains of the non-profits are the same as their for-profit counterparts. As one Catholic nun famously said, "no margin-no mission."

Perhaps some endeavors, such as police enforcement, should not be required to have "a margin" only a "mission." And, perhaps health care delivery fits into that category.

Here again, that's not what has occurred with the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. It is designed to protect the free market exchange of health care as much as it is designed to protect citizens from becoming bankrupt due to a devastating health catastrophe. But listening to the rhetoric on the right, it's hard to know that.

Yes, I have heard the argument. "Do you want the same people that are running the Postal Service running your health care system?" Well, here's one for them. Do you want the same people running your health care system to be the same ones who were once running Enron?

Give that some thought.

In Defense of the US Postal Service

Actually, the question raised by conservatives and libertarians, "do you want the same people who run our post office running our health care? " is worthy of further examination.

Think about it. For 44 cents you can write a personal note and have it hand delivered to virtually any house, apartment, or business in the country, usually within 2 to 5 days. Can you name any other service of equal or like value?

And, no, the USPS is not funded by our tax dollars. In fact, in 1970 the Postal Reorganization Act mandates that the Service  function as a semi-independent agency in a revenue neutral fashion. In other words, no losses, no profits.

Yes, the USPS is facing a major financial crisis. But it is not from poor management. The cause? In 2006, Congress passed a law requiring the Postal Service to pre-fund the cost of its retiree health benefits covering the next 75 years of obligation, but to do so in a mere 10 years. Trust me, if any other business was saddled with such a requirement it would be sucking air, too.

Fact is, the USPS is efficient. Ten years ago it took 70 employees one hour to sort 35,000 letters. Today, only two are required.

Fact is, the USPS is more reliable, more efficient, and less expensive than either UPS or Fed Ex in most categories of shipments.

And, did you know that each year UPS and Fed Ex pays the USPS to deliver over 400 million of their ground packages in residential areas and on Saturdays?

So, perhaps the answer to the question, "do you want the same people who run our Postal Service to be running our health care?" is a resounding...YES!

Here's a Novel Idea. Let's Put Christ Back into Christianity

By Dennis McClatchey

If you ask a Christian what it means to be a Christian, you are likely to get a response similar to this: having a personal relationship with Christ and knowing that he is the son of God and that he died for my sins. Further conversation would likely reveal the certainty that the only requirement for grace and salvation is in this belief. In fact, anyone anywhere not of like conviction will not be permitted to enter the Kingdom of Heaven regardless of his or her virtuous life.  

This, of course, means for the purist of this school of thought that if Hitler on his death bed asked Christ for forgiveness and he was truly sincere, Hitler would gladly be received into the Kingdom of Heaven. But for the millions of Jews who were gassed, tortured, starved, and ripped of their possessions by him...well, sorry, you're not in the club. To me, that alone disqualifies this brand of Christianity from being taken seriously. It certainly can't be described as a loving compassionate theology. But, that's just me.

To these followers, the price of admission for salvation is not complicated.

A recent conversation with a "devout Christian" stated it even more simply. She said, "I believe in Jesus because that's all he asks of us." Boy, that sounds really easy, doesn't it. It also sounds really wrong. As I think back to my younger days in the Methodist church, my Sunday school classes, and the church sermons that followed, to my undergraduate college religion courses which included classes in New Testament and the Life and Teachings of Jesus, I recall that being a Christian involved following the teachings of Jesus. And to do so was not all that simple. In fact, it seemed to be a rather daunting task.

So, what has happened? For me the answer is as simple and as it is puzzling. Many Christians do not follow the teachings of Jesus even though they seem convinced that they do.

What did Jesus teach?

Jesus taught that we will be judged by how we behave and how we treat others, not simply by what we believe. All through the Gospels (which translates to mean "the good news"), we find his ministry focused on the less fortunate, the margins of society. Jesus preaches that we should strive for universal compassion and selfless action.

 A good starting point for the ministry of Jesus can be found in Matthew chapters 5-7, referred to as the Sermon on the Mount, the longest piece of his teachings.

In Matt 7:21 it is clear that the simple way to Heaven claimed by many Christians is not the way seen by Jesus. "Not every one that saith to me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the Kingdom of Heaven; but he that doith the will of my Father which is in Heaven." 

In fact, Jesus did not teach that the way to salvation was faith alone. He taught faith through works and deeds. His was a proactive behavioral ministry. It was not based simply on a belief.

Matt 19:16-17: "And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life? And he said unto him, why callest thou me good? There is none good but one, that is God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments."

And, when it comes to obeying the commandments, here again, Jesus does not make it easy for us. Back to the Sermon on the Mount.

Matt 5:21-22: "Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not kill shall be in danger of the judgment: But I say unto you, That whoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment."

 Matt 5:27-28:"Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery: But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a women to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart."

 Not only does Jesus expect us to follow the commandments handed down to Moses, he significantly raises the bar for their compliance.

Far from having faith alone, Jesus taught a ministry of love and compassion.

Matt 22: 35-40:" Then one of them, which was a lawyer, asked him a question, tempting him and saying, Master, which is the greatest  commandment in the law? Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. On these two commandments hang all of the law of the prophets."

In Matthew Chapter 25, Jesus is asked directly how one is to enter the Kingdom of Heaven. He tells of judgment day when the Lord will separate us all as a farmer would separate his sheep from his goats. And then describes those who will be saved. His answer leaves no doubt that it is through action, not mere belief, that salvation is reached.

Matt 25: 35-36:. "For I was hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in; Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me."

And, when those receiving these words expressed their confusion of not having done this for him, he makes his meaning clear.

Matt 25:40:"And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me."

Jesus is telling us that, in the end, we will be judged by how we treat the less fortunate. To these we are to be loving, caring, and giving. Yet, I find it extremely curious that some who wear the Christian label most conspicuously protest the loudest against governmental policies aimed at the greater good. Welfare recipients are called parasites. Programs to help support the poor, the disabled, the sick, the elderly are denounced as evil socialism. Protesters hold signs reading: Christianity Not Socialism. I seriously doubt the protester could accurately define either term given the fact that what they call socialism is consistent with the ministry of Jesus.

Oh, I know the response...Jesus was asking of us as individuals, not governments. Please. I'm certain Jesus would have no objection to a government that follows his teachings (as well as individuals) particularly if such collective actions are the most effective way of meeting his goals. And, the sad truth is, the needs of the less fortunate can not and are not being sufficiently addressed by private efforts alone.

I suspect the real truth behind these protestations is not wanting portions of their earnings (taxes) going to someone else. We hear refrains such as: This is America, anyone can make it here if they work for it. After all the Good Book says the Lord helps those who help themselves (there is no such reference in the Bible). Why should my hard earned dollars go to these people, no one helped me? Sound to you like universal compassion and selfless action?

Perhaps this is one reason why many Christians have chosen the easy way to salvation, having faith only. The way outlined by Jesus requires some sacrifice. Believing in something is easy. Doing something less so.

Jesus was constantly preaching a message of giving.

Luke 6:38: "Give, and it shall be given unto you; good measure, pressed down, and shaken together, and running over, shall men give unto your bosom. For with the same measure that ye mete withal it shall be measured to you again."

Jesus was constantly preaching a message of loving actions.

Matt5:38-39: "Ye hath heard that it has been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: But I say unto you, that ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on the right cheek, turn to him the other also."

 Matt 7:12: "Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets." (the Golden Rule)

In the Beatitudes (Matt5:2-12) he extols the virtues of those who morn, the meek, the merciful, and the peacemakers.

He tells us how to pray.

Matt 6: 5-7: "And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, they have their reward. But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy father which seeith in secret shall reward thee openly. But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathens do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking."

And then Jesus instructs us as to the Lord's Prayer. (Matt 5: 8-12.)  Interestingly, in the Prayer he tells us that before we can be forgiven for our actions against others (our trespasses, our debts) we must forgive others who require forgiveness from us. Forgiveness requires a quid pro quo. Our forgiveness requires action on our part.

This view of forgiveness is stated again.

 Luke 6:37: "Judge not, and ye shall not be judged: condemn not, and ye shall not be condemned: Forgive and ye shall be

forgiven."

Speaking of judgment, Jesus repeatedly expressed his disdain for those who go about casting their moral indignation at others.

John 8: 7: "So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.

Matt 7:3: And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considered not the beam that is in thine own eye."

Over and over Jesus teaches us that it is our actions, our behavior that matters most.

John 3: 19-21:  "And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, nether cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved. But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God."

Given Jesus' antitheses for public praying and those poking their disapproving figure at others, I can't help but wonder how he would react to today's television evangelists who, when they are not asking for money, are pointing out all the many sinners (homosexuals as one example) and praying at the drop of a hat in front of millions of viewers. I'm sure they have an answer. And, I'm equally sure it won't come from accurately quoting Jesus.

Faith only requirement

So from where did this prevailing Christian belief that faith is all that is required for salvation? The answer is simple: Paul.

It is true that "Christians" who choose the easy road to salvation can find ample New Testament references supporting this view. The problem, though, such instructions are found in books reported to be authored by the Apostle Paul (Romans, 1st Corinthians, 2nd Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1st Thessalonians, 2nd Thessalonians, 1st Timothy, 2nd Timothy, Titus, Philemon ) and not from books representing the story and teachings of Jesus. And, they are not in harmony with one another.

(It should be noted that Biblical scholars have questioned whether Paul was the author of all these books, or portions of some of these books. Because they are described as Pauline books and have been represented as Paul's works, for the purpose of this discussion I have attributed the Apostle Paul as their author)

It is clear that Jesus followed the law of Moses and preached constantly that one was to follow and uphold these Jewish traditions and beliefs.

Matt 5: 18-19 (Sermon on the Mount):" For verily I say unto you, till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach them so, he shall be called the least in the Kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the Kingdom of heaven."

Paul, on the other hand, sees the road to salvation much differently.

Romans 3:28. "Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.

Gal 2:16: "Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified."

Gal 3:11: "But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith."

Romans 9: 31-32:  "But Israel, which followed after the law of righteousness, hath not attained to the law of righteousness. Wherefore? Because they sought it not by faith, but as it were by the works of the law. For they stumbled at that stumbling stone."

Eph 2: 8-9: "For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God: Not of works, least any man should boast."

And while Jesus was constantly reaching out and ministering to the sinners of the day (the unclean, the whores, adulterers) and expressing love and compassion, Paul would have none of that.

1Cor 5:11: "But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man is called a brother be he a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one not to eat."

And when Jesus was asking of us to care for the least of us who go hungry, Paul, again, would have none of that.

2Thess 3:10: "For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat."

Does this seem Christ-like to you? To me Christians need to make a choice: follow Jesus (faith through works and deeds) or follow Paul (justification through faith alone). You can't have it both ways.

Who was the Apostle Paul?

Much of what we know about the life of Paul comes to us in the Book of Acts, believed to be authored by the same person who wrote the Book of Luke.

In his early days, Paul (formally Saul of Tarsus) could be described as a religious zealot and extremist. He found the teachings of Jesus to be blasphemy and did all he could, including violence, to persecute those who followed the ways of Christ.

Acts 8:3:  "As for Saul, he made havoc of the church, entering into every house, and haling men and women committed them to prison."

The conversion of Paul is described in Acts 9:1-22  On his way to Damascus in his angered pursuit to put more Christians into prison, Paul is struck by a blinding light from Heaven and hears the voice of Jesus asking why does he persecute him and his followers.

From here we are told Saul receives the Holy Spirit, becomes baptized and begins his ministry for Christ. This mission takes him to Jerusalem (where he meets the disciples Peter and James) then onto Cyprus, Antioch in Pisidia, Iconium, Lystra, and Derbe. Ironically, Paul begins to receive the very same gruesome violence that he had previously instigated.

Aside from his vision on the road to Damascus, Paul never met Jesus. Never heard him preach. And, with the exception of Peter and James never met any of the disciples. And, based upon the Book of James, it is doubtful that James would embrace Paul's faith-only road to salvation.

James 2:24: "Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith alone."

And yet oddly, it is Paul who is considered the founder of Christianity, not Jesus. Perhaps this is because we have actual writings from Paul, and only reported stories of Jesus. And, much more of the New Testament is devoted to those writings.

So, is that how we choose which path to follow? Do we go the way of Paul because he has the luxury of having been more literate than Jesus? Do we choose Paul because he seemed to be a master at marketing this new religion? Or, perhaps, Paul is our choice because he enjoyed a longer life than Jesus and, therefore, a longer ministry?

Or, maybe your choice is Paul because his is a much simpler road to salvation. But such a path makes us free of moral obligations. Because in the end, we are all saved if we just believe and ask for forgiveness.

If that is your theology of choice, fine. But do me a favor. Don't call it Christianity.