Dividing this blog into several more topical blogs

Over the next few weeks, I will be dividing this blog into several more narrowly topical blogs.

The first topic to be removed from the future of this blog is my complaints about discrimination in attorney licensure, which are being moved to Disability Discrimination in Attorney Licensure, created today, a blog completely dedicated to that topic alone.

 I haven't yet decided whether this blog will retain my theological ramblings and attempts to promote church unity, or my political activism, with the other topic being moved to another blog.  But, when I have decided, I will change the name and description of this blog accordingly.

 

The Teacher Syndrome

 I first posted the following entry on a former blog in November 2006, but it still appears to be a valid explanation of a major portion of the course of my life:

I now have a better understanding of one aspect of my past and present. The Apostle Paul wrote concerning teachers:

And he gave some to be apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; for the perfecting of the saints, unto the work of ministering, unto the building up of the body of Christ

Ephesians 4:11-12

Thus, teachers in the Church are not self-appointed, and not appointed by other men based upon church program needs, education, training, interest or observed aptitudes. They are chosen and appointed by God, and given to the Church as a gift, for the purpose of building up the Body of Christ. God chooses teachers, and, given his foreknowledge and His presence throughout time, must have known from the very beginning every teacher he would give to the Church.

Somewhat by contrast, the Apostle James wrote:

Be not many of you teachers, my brethren, knowing that we shall receive heavier judgment. For in many things we all stumble...

James 3:1-2a

Thus, anyone who is given to the Church as a teacher—and anyone who presumes to act as a teacher without being called to that role—will be judged more severely than others. We see plenty of evidence of this in the treatment the world, and most of the organized church, gives to church leaders who fall into public sin.

However, I also see this pattern in my own life, from childhood. Long before I even knew Christ, and a very long time before I was aware of my calling as a teacher, I was subject to stricter standards than those around me. Performance that won my siblings praise won me criticism because I "could have done better." Sometimes it seemed that even an "A" in school wasn't good enough for me. I was punished for behavior that was tolerated in my siblings and my friends. Penalties were harsher for me as a child, and the reminders of my shame also seemed to continue longer. I was simply never good enough, whereas others around me were.

This pattern has continued since I came to Christ at age 16 and into my adult life. I have rather consistently been denied earthly rewards for my accomplishments, even when anyone else would have earned a reward. I was class valedictorian in High School, for instance, but was not permitted to speak at Commencement. I have five college degrees, including a law degree, but have a job as a paralegal—a position in which I am prohibited by law from taking any credit for my accomplishments (my work becomes my employers' work).

Outside of work, my worldly accomplishments have been largely limited to forums—like the Internet—in which no other person has to approve of me before I start work. If someone else has to give approval before I may start, I cannot work, because approval is rather consistently denied. Of course, this limitation to forums where other people don't have to approve of me also means that I'm limited to forums in which I will be ignored.

The punishment for my offenses also remains different than that imposed on others. I am still paying the penalty for relatively minor crimes I committed more than 20 years ago. These things still stand in the way of any worldly advancement—where I can show court cases to rove that others would have lived these offenses down by now. But I am not them, and they are not me. This is a major distinction!

This article is really not a complaint. It is an explanation. I now understand one aspect of my life that has annoyed me for years. God is not being unfair. He is treating me as a teacher—the calling he gave me before I was born. For the good of the Body, teachers are treated more severely.

 

No disillusionment with Obama

OK, I confess, I voted for Barack Obama.   I am not disillusioned with him after his first month.   I am not disillusioned because I never had any illusions that he, or anyone else, could accomplish much.  Indeed, the voters could have elected me, and I would not have been able to do anything much different from what President Obama has done.

Yes, as I said in this blog more than once, even before the election, I had hoped that our new President would address the problems of most ordinary people with consumer credit (not just mortgages) these days in a way that would allow them to be paid off on more reasonable and less destructive terms.  But this has not happened.

I had also hoped that a new President might be persuaded to a method of health care reform more closely approximating national health care than anything we heard about during the campaign.  But this has also not happened.

However, I realize that these things, and other things that might have been good, have not happened not because President Obama is dishonest but because no one in his position would have been able to deliver these things.  Several factors contribute to this.

First, and most obvious, the economy is apparently going headlong into a depression.  This limits what funds are available to do.

Second, President Bush's rush bailout package just before the election  spent most of President Obama's flexibility before he was even elected, and spent it--predictably--on rescuing the economy by making the rich richer. 

Third, the ruling thinking on both sides of the aisle in Washington emphasizes consumer spending as ultimately the way to create jobs and revive the economy.  The only point of contention between the parties is how best to go about encouraging spending.  Both sides are afraid of an increase in the personal savings rate that seems to be developing. This increase is good news for the economy in the long run, but  bad for sales NOW--and no one in Washington can afford to look past the next election.  Alas, anything that helps the common people stop going further in debt--like real assistance with that debt or national health care--increases the savings rate (since paying off debt is a form of savings).  So such measures can't be countenanced, at least not now.

Fourth, and even more fundamentally, the corporate entities that are really in control of both the economy and the government are depending upon and fully committed to contnued increases in personal debt, as this increases their power.

But most importantly, our President is not free to make the changes that would really positively change things for the people because the Church of Jesus Christ in this country is still involved in the idolatry of expecting human institutions to provide for their needs. As long as this idolatry continues, things will continue to deteriorate, as I predicted more than 8 years ago.  When the Church cleans up its act, and starts trusting God to provide and doing what He says to do with what is provided, our leaders will miraculously become free to do right, and things will improve for believers and unbelievers alike.   

 

 

 

Letter to my Republican U.S. Senators about the reasons for national health care

Here is a copy of a letter I sent to my two Republican U.S. Senators recently, explaining as fully as I could the reasons national health care is necessary:

<<

 For years, I was a mostly pretty conservative Republican.  I was a
Republican precinct committeeman for 10 years. I'm still committed to the
pro-life position and conservative on many social issues.

But I've come to the conclusion that national health care is the only
workable solution that doesn't leave a lot of working people completely
out of the health care system and many of the others (and their employers) paying extortionate rates for shrinking coverage.

I have a pretty good job.  I'm paid $50,000 per year.  But my employer is
a small law firm--three employees with five lay staff (I'm a paralegal). 
Some of the employees or their family members have common chronic diseases (I'm one of those).  As of the rate increase last October, my employers pay more than $500 for my individual coverage.  I pay $907 per month to  cover my family.  And our Blue Cross plan doesn't pay a cent until we meet $2,500 per person/ $5,000 for all of us annual deductible. 

The cost of providing insurance for employees is a major strain on my
employers, who discuss it frequently.   Then again, my premiums plus my
deductible consume 54% (you read that right!) of my annual after-tax
income.  And you wonder why people aren't spending money and creating
jobs?   We need to get the burden of healthcare off of the backs of
business--without putting it squarely on the backs of ordinary people who
are unable to bear it.  (That was the problem with the McCain health
plan--it would have moved the cost off of business and mostly onto older
and sicker workers.)

All of the information I've seen on the subject indicates that something
in excess of 35% or 40% of health insurance premiums paid go to overhead costs--people whose jobs are to collect premiums, file claims, process claims or deny claims.  Great savings could be achieved here.

Finally, I note that health care on an insurance model is fundamentally
incompatible with the preventive health emphasis we will need to improve
the nation's health AND to achieve cost containment.  Insurance, by its
nature, only pays for "loss" events AFTER a loss has occurred, and expects
insureds to pay for any needed loss prevention activities themselves. 
This approach may work fine for commercial insurance, but works very badly  for health coverage.  Why?  First, because the majority of the people in the system can't afford to pay for much in the way of loss prevention
after paying their premiums and deductibles.  Second, becuase the most
effective loss prevention strategies are population-wide strategies. 

So, for all of the above reasons, I support S.4 (which I understand is
just a "sense of Congress" resolution) and H.R. 676.

>>

Supporting HR 676, a health care reform bill compatible with prevention that has a chance

In an earlier blog post, I announced my support for HR 15.  I still think it's a good bill.  The problem is, it probably doesn't have a chance of passage.

Since the date of that earlier post, a group of congressmen have re-introduced HR 676, the "United States National Health Care Act or the Expanded and Improved Medicare for All Act."  This is the same HR 676 that was before the last Congress, and it has now been re-introduced in this Congress under the same bill number.  Although in some ways it is quite different from HR 15, it also establishes a single-payer system, and it also permits and encourages methods of payment to providers other than the traditional "payment for service" method.  Thus, like HR 15, it is compatible with the expansion of the prevention emphasis that will be so vitally important to improving public health and reducing the cost of health care in the long-term.

As I have said before, paying for health care under the traditional insurance model--which only pays for insured "loss" events AFTER the "loss" has occurred--is fundamently incompatible with a focus on prevention.  A system focused on prevention will provide services BEFORE any loss occurs.  HR 676 is compatible with this focus, and would allow medical providers to choose to be paid on models that favor prevention, though it also would leaves providers the option to be paid on the traditional pyment for service after loss model if they so chose.  

Thus, on these grounds alone, HR 676 would be far preferable to the approach the President seems to prefer--mandated private health insurance coverage, with the federal employeees' Blue Cross plan being opened to everyone who doesn't have other insurance.  Any approach which continues our dependence on the payment for "loss," only AFTER the loss, approach to health care financing stands in the way of prevention and will lead to escalating future costs.  

HR 676 also has the virtue that it will get us completely away from all of the other trappings of "insurance"--premiums, deductibles and coinsurance--that disproportionately burden low- and middle-income insureds.  

However, the real advantage of HR 676 over HR 15 is that HR 676 has a decent chance of passage.  This is a big advantage!

I now support HR 676.

See the HR 676.org website

Have others been denied Bar admission because of disabilities?
Topic: legal matters

I'm looking for others who have been denied licensure as attorneys because of conditions that qualify as disabilities under the Americans with Disabilities Act, as it was amended and substantially broadened by the ADA Amendments Act of 2008.  I suspect that, if we work together--or even if we start approaching the U.S. Justice Department and the federal courts independently NOW, with an appearance of a mass movement--we can get discriminatory state court policies (most of which are unwritten, understood policies) changed.  My full reasoning for this effort, and my suggested approaches to the problem, are posted on the web page on the Hidden Issue of Disability Discrimination in Attorney Licensure. 

Abbreviated, my reasoning is as follows:

 1.  One of the primary traditional functions of any professional licensing regime--whether for lawyers, doctors, architects, or barbers--is to ENFORCE society's fears and stereotypes for the benefit of the licensed occupation's public image by excluding any applicant who has a socially stigmatized condition.  This traditional purpose of occupational licensing is in direct tension with the main purpose of the ADA, which is to insure that the diabled are judged on their individual merits in employment and in the administration of public proograms, and tht society's accumulated fears and stereotypes are not considered.

2.  I know that, in my own case, I was denied admission to the Kansas Bar in 1993 in large part because I had a history of bipolar disorder for which I was still receiving successful treatment.  I applied again in 2006, after 13 more years of successful treatment, no manic relapses, and a change in my primary diagnosis to Asperger's Disorder (my treating psychiatrist testified that he now believed the bipolar diagnosis had simply been wrong).  Nevertheless, I was denied admission again, on the grounds that I had previously been denied admission in 1993 and had not proven that I had been "rehabilitated" from my mental illness, as required by Kansas Supreme Court Rule 704(k).  The Court believed I had not shown rehabilitation becuase I was still receiving treatment and the testifying doctors couldn't swear that I would never break under any pressure, no matter how extreme.  I thoroughly briefed the ADA, but neither the Kansas Board of Law Examiners nor the Court mentioned it in their decisions in my case, in either year.

3.   Many other otherwise qualified applicants with stigmatized mental, emotional and/or developmental disabilities must have applied and been denied admission nationwide since the ADA became effective in 1991. (Note that I'm not singling out Kansas, the problem appears to have nationwide scope).  Yet there are NO published cases whatever, anywhere, either applying ADA to individual attorney character and fitness determinations or holding that ADA does not apply to these determinations.  This lack of any case law addressing a situation that must have arisen numerous times strongly suggests that the courts are consciously ignoring the ADA in this context, hoping it will go away if it is never mentioned.

4.  The ADA was clarified and greatly expanded in scope on September 25, 2008, by the enactment of the ADA Amendments Act of 2008.  Because of the clarification made to the definition of a "disability," Title II of the ADA now clearly protects people with mental, emotional and developmental disabilties when official action is taken against them on the basis of those disabilities.

5.  It is now also clear, as it wasn't until 2004, that Title II of the ADA is valid legislation enforcing the Fourteenth Amendment.  See, Tennessee v. Lane, 541 U.S. 509 (2004).  As such, individuals discriminated against on the basis of a disability in the administration of a public program (which includes licensing programs) may bring suits for both money damages and equitable relief.  Thus, if numbers of applicants rejected in the past on the basis of a disability start to move with even an appearance of a coordinated effort, we will present a credible threat and may obtain some action. 

NOW ABOUT MY MOTIVATION:

I believe, reasonably I think, that my own cause is permanently lost.  Kansas will never admit me, no matter what I prove.  If I could make any proof that would be enough, my showing in 2006 would be enough.  I also don't have the funds to quit my prsent job, move to another state, and try again there, and suspect that any state I might move to would simply automatically reject me out of comity with the Kansas courts.  So I'm not launching this effort for my own benefit.  There appears to be little chance that it will ever financially benefit me.

Instead, I want the vindication of seeing the rules that have permanently blocked me changed for the benefit of others.  I want to see the courts recognize that they are bound to the policy underlying the ADA, just like the rest of us, even though this change will come too late to benefit me.

It may be asked why I can't just privately recognize my defeat, mourn my loss, and go on with my life.  The reason is that I'm not allowed to forget my exclusion from the Bar.  Once a month, I receive a bill from the agency that holds my student loan from law school.  The required payments are a sizable part of my disposable income.  I have been paying on this loan for more than 20 years, have already paid considerably more than the original principal, and am nevertheless still less than one third paid off.  It has taken so long because, when the lender assumed I would be establishing my practice and would be able to increase my payments on schedule, such was not the case--because I kept being denied a license.  The student loan bill reminds me of my loss every month.  I have not yet found the grace to let go of my loss as long as I have this monthly, rude reminder of it. I might be able to let go and move on, if the student loan were gone.  But this is not to be.

So, instead I'm seeking the vindication of knowing that I participated in starting the effort that changed the rules.

 

 

 

Christian-oneness.org is closing March 20, 2009, unless
Topic: legal matters
As explained on the web page Christian-oneness.org closing March 20, 2009, unless outside funds arrive, recent personal financial setbacks have put even the $99 annual renewal fee for the website's existence beyond my means.  Therefore, the site will close on that date unless other funding sources appear.  I am giving this notice to permit those who are interested in the site's contents time to capture what interests them, before it disappears. 

Bills in the new Congress on consumer credit and health care

OK, now that the new Congress is in session, I can identify some bills that I can support. 

On the subject of consumer credit reform, I support S 3, HR 627/ S 235, and S 255.

On the subject of health care,  I support S 4 and HR 15.  If HR 15 cannot be enacted, I would accept HR 193 or some similar bill as much better than nothing.  But HR 15 is preferable.

None of the bils pesently before Congress on the subject of consumer credit or economic relief provide any direct relief to distressed consumer debtors, and none of them reverse the "reforms" of the bankruptcy bill three years ago that made consumer debts much more difficult to obtain any relief from in bankruptcy (although there is one bill that would allow some additional bankruptcy relief for  distressed mortgage debts).  However, there is a "sense of Congress" resolution before the Senate, S.3, the "Homeowner Protection and Wall Street Accountability Act," that appears to be calling upon Congress to enact legislation for the relief of consumer debtors, among other things. And there are three bills that would make at least a good start on the kinds of reforms in the consumer credit markets that I was proposing in my post last September:  HR 627/ S 235 identical companion bills entitled the "Credit Cardholders' Bill of Rights Act of 2009," and S 255, the "Empowering States' Right to Protect Consumers Act of 2009." 

On the subject of health care systems, there are three bills presently before Congress that would appear to be, or to call for, a large step in the right direction, though none of them is perfect.

S 4 is entitled the "Comprehensive Health Reform Act of 2009," but it is really only a "sense of Congress" resolution.  However, if Congress actually enacted bills incorporating all of the reforms called for in the resolution, it would take a great step forward.

HR 15, the "National Health Insurance Act," and HR 193, the "AmeriCare Health Care Act of 2009," present alternative models for arriving at something approximating universal coverage.  Either one would be a great step forward. In my opinion, HR 15 is a better bill.  If I'm reading it correctly, it wouldn't cover quite as many people as HR 193, which is a disadvantage.  But it has the strength that it appears to get farther away from the old "insurance" model  of health care delivery, with its insistence on strict fee for service payment, and its insistence that individuals bear deductibles and coinsurance payments. In this way, HR 15 appears not only to be friendlier to low- and middle-income people, but also to be more consistent with the much-needed shift to a preventive medicine emphasis. The insurance model requires that medical services be paid for only AFTER the insured "loss" has occurred.  HR 15 would permit alternative payment systems--advance contractual retainers and hiring of physicians on salaries to provide care--that are more consistent with prevention of disease.

 

 

Why the President chose Rick Warren

After I watched the festivities today, I understood WHY the President picked Rick Warren for the invocation, and just how intelligent the choice was. The President was announcing, just as clearly as he possibly could, that he wants unity in this country so much that he is willing to work with ANYONE who will work with him, regardless of their ideological purity. This even includes (GASP!) conservative Christians.

Pastor Warren lacks liberal ideological purity on the homosexuality and abortion issues, of course. The media and the President's supporters from the gay community have been making a fuss over that ever since the choice was announced.  But the President was attacking an even deeper division. The principle that all gods are equal is a basic tenet of traditional liberalism. To traditional religious liberals, all gods are equally relevant; to traditional non-religious liberals, all gods are equally irrelevant; but all of the gods of the world religions are equal. Traditional liberals, for the last 50 years, at least, have uniformly insisted that their leaders respect this principle in all of their public pronouncements.

However, Pastor Warren did not respect this principle. He prayed in the name of Jesus (a big no-no all by itself) without mentioning any other gods.  The President worked with Pastor Warren on a televised forum during the campaign, and knew him even before that.  The President   must have anticipated that Warren's prayer, though very positive and proper in every other respect, would be politically incorrect in its failure to recognize other gods. The only conclusion that can be drawn from this is that the President intended to announce that he was not going to insist on dividing the country over this issue by excluding people whose faith allows them to acknowledge only one God.  (I note that this is true not only of Christians, but also of religious Jews and of followers of Islam).   It's about time!

I am a conservative Christian myself, at least in my theology.  Yet I am very willing to work with this President, to accomplish most of the the things that form a part of his vision for this country.  The few matters on which I disagree with him do not diminish my support for him personally, as our leader, or for most of what he is trying to accomplish. All I can say is, let's get started!

At last, a President who knows how to pronounce Iraq!
Topic: F unAQs
At last!  A President who knows how to pronounce "Iraq!"