Over the weekend, I shared in this blog three of the moral problems the House health care bill as it stands now creates for America. On the show on Sunday night, I shared a fourth.

One of those areas in which the end does not justify the immoral means of getting there is the fact that this bill still allows for federal funds to be used to pay for abortions through the Capps Amendment.

In response, I received a number of emails. One in particular stood out for its utilitarian reasoning. I have posted my response to the author beneath it.

Mr. Hunt,
I have been listening to your views on abortion and I feel compelled to write. I am a 44 years old, married for 14 years, and have an 11 year old son. I was raised catholic and my son goes to a catholic school. There is no question in my mind that life begins at conception, but I think the crisis we now face is going to cause us to make some hard choices. Every child that is aborted means that my son will have a better chance of having a bright future. There will be no future for any of us unless we reduce the population. Please stop being so high and mighty and face reality. The times ahead are going to be rougher than most understand.
Yours,
M


M,

Thank you for listening to the show and for writing. I appreciate it very much.

Obviously, you and I disagree. It is not a high and mighty horse. It is the basic conviction that each human life is worth as much as your son's is. Each of us is made in the image of God (which you evidently concur with). So what population would you like to begin thinning? Which ones exactly are the ones who are preventing your son's "bright future?"

Moreover, where do you get the idea that we need to reduce the population? The entire population of the planet could fit in the state of Texas. Hardly a "crisis," and I would not want to be the one to tell God we just decided to thin out the herd based on what we wanted.

Grace and Peace,
Allen

We took some time off at the show this past weekend, and my wife and I enjoyed lounging around to watch a few movies at home since the rain washed out any hopes of hiking (my hope) or photography (her hope).

3 Movies Consumed all in all

1) Gaslight
1940's classic which was good but not as good as I remembered the play's having been. Ingrid Bergman is the main star. Woman is driven crazy by her husband who ultimately is revealed to be a psychopath. A plot very much like everyday in the Hunt home.

AHS Grade: B

2) Ghosts of Girlfriends Past
Being lazy we paid for a 2 for 1 deal of DirecTV for movies. This one starred Matthew McConnaughey, and by my recollection, he never took off his shirt once in the whole movie. An exercise in remarkable self-control. Actually turned out to be an entertaining romantic comedy that was a cross between A Christmas Carol and typical McConnaughey flicks. Believe it or not, the movie turned out to be a morality tale more than anything else. Pretty good fare.

AHS Grade: B+

3) Easy Virtue
The second part of our deal. In a word, terrible. No plot, lousy sound with lots of mumbling and fake British accents. Qualifies for the Oscar category of "Worst Movie Made in the 2000's"


AHS Grade: F

Gestation has ended. The bill has arrived. On Thursday, Speaker Pelosi proudly announced the arrival of her 1990 page, $894 billion health care bill in the House of Representatives. Labor and delivery occurred in smoke-filled back rooms, unviewed by the layman's eye, and it is not known if an epidural was required.

Much has been made of Washington's wrangling over health care in the past few months. Pundits from all sides, and a few from the faith community, have weighed in on the right and the left of health care reform.

However, very little has been written about the morality of health care reform, and of this bill in particular. The few commentators who have written on the morality of health care have focused on the basic moral teaching that human beings deserve health care and that Jesus has commanded his followers to serve the poor and the disfranchised. That is a noble, moral end to be sure; however, moral thinking does not end there. Rigorous examination also requires that we consider the means by which we provide for one another and offer health and help to those who have none. Very simply, the end does not necessarily justify the means. It is important that we not only do the right thing, but also that we do it in the right way(s).

With that in mind, an analysis of the morality of the means of this health care bill's proposed actions is in order. In the end, it is found morally lacking for at least three reasons.

1)Stewardship

Humans are called to manage our resources well. Just as pollution of the creation is an example of poor stewardship of our resources, so too is the squandering of our material wealth. We live in a world of finite resources. Leadership requires careful decisions on the highest and best use of those finite resources. In the end, we answer for how we use what has been entrusted to us.

If the goal (as has often been stated) is to provide health insurance coverage for all those who currently cannot afford to purchase their own, this health care bill spends twice as much as is needed to achieve this noble end. Given Washington's predilection for spending, that should not surprise us. For bureaucracies, waste is a way of life, and overspending an ever-present reality. How such bureaucracies degrade human dignity is a moral discussion for another day. For now, bureaucratic squandering is more than enough moral material.

Given that a large portion of this bill will be funded by more incurred debt and by our children and grandchildren, it is morally right to achieve a good end by means as efficient as possible. The numbers show that about 14 million non-elderly, legally resident adults in America desire health insurance coverage but cannot afford to pay for it. Medicare will already cover any elderly who need coverage, and other programs exist to do the same for children. If we assume that we will pay for the entire cost of coverage for those 14 million adults, insuring each of those persons should be achievable for a cost of about $3000 per person based on what our small non-profit pays to insure our employees and their families. At that rate, we can provide insurance for all persons in America simply by spending $42 billion per year to insure those who desire to be insured.

At that cost, the price for ten years of coverage will be about $420 billion. The Speaker's proud bill projects a cost of more than twice that. Bad stewardship. Resources squandered. Morally wrong.


2)Social Justice

Most persons of faith agree that all human beings deserve access to quality health care. That is a basic issue of human dignity and compassion. Unfortunately, this health care bill not provide access for all Americans in spite of the initial grandiose political statements of the Washingtonians. Everyone in Washington, on the left and the right, acknowledges that this bill does not provide coverage for every person who needs it. Therefore, were we to pass this bill, we would not only be wasting resources, we would also be failing to achieve the moral end we were seeking to reach. The rhetorical flourish of President Obama and Congressional leaders throughout the debate has indicated that the motivation for health care reform was to ensure that all Americans had coverage. This bill fails to do just that.

Those, like Jim Wallis, who call themselves the “Religious Left” should be disturbed. They have been used as a tool in a political effort that has failed to do what they set out to do. The basic issue of social justice that has motivated Wallis and his followers has not been achieved, and their voices have been exploited. Morally wrong.

Remarkably, the above figure of $42 billion to cover everyone who needs and desires it, also coincides almost exactly with the amount Speaker Pelosi projects that we can save each year on Medicare “fraud and waste.” First, leave aside the moral matter of why we have not already acted to save the money squandered on “fraud and waste” in a government program of publicly administered money for health care. Instead, marvel at the simple fact that by managing one public fund (Medicare) well, we can pay for everyone in America who desires health care to have it. Social justice with stewardship. Good moral concepts to inject into Washington.


3) Sanctity of Life

Finally, this health care bill denies the very moral nature of health care itself. Destroying the lives of the unborn in the name of health care is not only paradoxical, it is immoral. Rep. Bart Stupak, a Democrat from Michigan, has rightly noted this bill's immorality and its codification in the attached Capps Amendment. Despite the squeals of President Obama, Press Secretary Gibbs, and Speaker Pelosi, this bill, as it stands now, will allow the use of federal monies to pay for the termination of human life in the form of abortion. Public subsidies will be used to support the purchase of insurance for persons unable to afford insurance themselves. The insurance purchased will be required to cover abortions. Fortunately, Rep. Stupak has proposed an amendment to rectify this situation, and he has declared himself unwilling to vote on the entire health care bill until his amendment has first been considered by the House. Moreover, he claims to have the votes to ensure that such consideration occurs. I pray that he is right, and that he holds to his word.

It is more than ironic that one Catholic politician (Stupak) would have to hold accountable another Catholic politician (Pelosi) on the issue of the sanctity of human life. In fact, it is tragic and sad. But good for Mr. Stupak. He has the moral courage to stand for what is right and has suggested that he is even willing to lose his seat, should his position on life do so, in order to do the right thing.

Would that Washington possessed other such figures whose votes were shaped by their morals, rather than vice-versa.

I finally got my cell phone back. I lost it 10 days ago at the Atlanta airport while going through the post-9/11 Muslim security experience. Somehow, in the middle of taking off my shoes, removing my belt, displaying my laptop, coughing when instructed to do so, and bending over at just the right time, my cell phone vanished.

Good news: I got a full weekend in Green Bay for a Packers game without worry of distraction from phone calls or messages. Wonderful break!


Bad news: It took about a week to get the phone back. I did not miss the phone nearly as much as I missed my contacts. People that I regularly check in with were inaccessible to me because I no longer had their number. Phones are replaceable; people are not.

Lesson 1: Guess I should learn to back up my phone, huh?

But The real lesson came in just how naked I felt without access to my contacts and friends. Life sure is empty when you cannot talk to the people you like or love. Love people and use your phone - never get those two mixed up.

Not surprising that our shows last week, and over the weekend, regarding second chances for sex offenders set off a fire storm in my email inbox.

It is easy to hate. Sex offenders often do vile things. However, people can change. SOme do; some do not. I have experienced that personally. Secondly, forgiveness is a way to spiritual health not only for the perpetrator but for the victim. Forgiveness is usually more popular when you need it than when others ask for it. The grace of God is offensive.


Forgiveness does not mean there is no justice. Sex offenders should serve time for their crimes and be required to receive treatment. Again, I have experienced that change with several persons who have found redemption and life change from their immoral acts.

Forgiveness does mean that when you accept responsibility for your actions, and do the hard work of repentance and therapy, you deserve a second chance.

Here are two opposing views from listeners.

I can't believe the dribble coming out of you mouth.
The more you speak, the more you demonstrate how little you know about sex offenders.

Would you approve of one of your daughters dating a convicted child molester?

Children are prey to the offenders, the pumpkins are brilliant.

See what your neighbors think about this sign on your house

"Sex offenders, I forgive you"

Did you mention they paid their debt to society with prison time and rehab?

I am currently doing a documentary on life in prison;

40 weeks, 30 different prisons - THERE IS NO REHAB.

I've never called a talk show or written a host, but your ignorance is offensive.

I can't believe you get paid.

S

And the second

I caught a few minutes of your show this evening and wanted to say, "THANK YOU".

I am a registered sex offender, my offense was against a neighbor child. I have fulfilled all of the court's orders in my sentencing, and am actively involved in a Sex Offender Treatment Program.

In Nebraska, changes in the laws regarding sex offenders take effect January 1, 2010. These laws will, in effect, continue to punish me for my crimes. I have repented of my crime, and have successfully turned my life around. Unfortunately, society could care less, and insists on perpetuating the punishment. I have been unemployed for nearly a year. My wife (of 24 years) was "forced" to divorce me or lose custody of our children. I have lost everything, except hope and my love in Jesus Christ.

Thank you for using facts (regarding recidivism rates) instead of jumping on the bandwagon to bash all sex offenders. I, for one, appreciate your Christ-like attitude, and hope He blesses you 100 fold.

G

C.B. Bucknor will not be working the World Series. Scheduled to work his first World Series as a major league umpire, Bucknor blew two calls in Game 1 of the American League Division Series. His poor performance, coupled with a number of embarrassing umpiring gaffes in this year's baseball playoffs caused the baseball powers-that-be to realign their umpire schedules for this week's Fall Classic. First-time umpires are out; seasoned veterans are in.

As frustrating as the umpires' calls have been to players and fans, just imagine the chaos that would ensure if the men in blue began visiting the mound between pitches to offer advice on pitch selection. Or if the umpires began meeting with managers before and during the game to dictate who the right-fielder should be in. Or if the umpires union met with the General Manager of each team to help set salaries for players based on their opinions as umpires. Everyone would ask: are the umpires officiating the rules or are they playing the game? Who is making what decisions and how? How does an umpire both officiate and play?

Someone needs to ask these same questions of the Obama administration when it comes to the activities of the Pay Czar, Kenneth Feinberg. Capitalism needs rules to be sure, but it is important to remember that capitalism functions best when the players play the game, and the umpires referee it. When the umpires begin to put their toe into the game, confusion reigns. Excessive government tinkering threatens to inhibit capitalism's ability to do what it does best:to create wealth and to lift the poor out of poverty.

Confusion reigns when players and managers are not sure of what the rules are anymore. They no longer understand their roles. Exactly what are the umpires doing, and what can a player or manager in the game do? Financial industry executives are left in this quandary right now. First, Washington bails out struggling financial players. Then, Washington does not clearly articulate what the expectations of that bailout will be, leaving the details for later in the urgency of “saving Wall Street and the economy.” Months later, the details emerge, the compensation at bailed-out companies is reduced, even capped, and leaders are left wondering what, if any, role they can or will play in the future of the companies they lead.

Already, executives are fleeing the tinkering hands of Big Government. At Bank of America, just 14 of 25 of the affected executives still remain. At AIG, only 13 of 25. By all accounts, morale is abysmal in both organizations. Worst of all, more details still remain to be revealed as Feinberg has yet more employee compensation rulings to issue, not the least of which is the ultra-sensitive issue of nearly $200 million in bonuses due in March to employees at AIG Financial Products. Confusion reigns, dismay abounds, and leadership is left with little but questions.

Tentative leaders are poor leaders. Leaders who do not understand the rules of the game, since the rules are being written even as the game is being played, cannot lead. Debate the right and wrong of the initial bailout all you want, but it is a reality now. The past cannot be changed. We can only deal with the present and the future. The public now has a large stake in a number of large financial institutions, and the public's interest is for their money to be repaid as quickly as possible. Disabling leaders in the indebted institutions hardly serves that public interest.

Worse still, by restricting pay, and by setting the precedent for Washingtonian micro-management, the government's actions decrease these banks' abilities to attract competitive talent in the future. Many leaders have already left. Will effective new ones be attracted by a restricted pay scale and a meddling Pay Czar? No. When an effective leader can take a job across the street for three times the pay, and without the meddling tinkering of Washington, why would he or she be motivated to work for AIG, Bank of America, or CitiGroup?

In my two decades as a pastor, I learned that some of the most expensive gifts I or the church received were the free ones. Whether the ultimate cost came as a result of the unstated expectations of the donor or from the unforeseen poor quality that was discovered later, it became clear that things that are offered as free usually end up costing you the most in the end. Free is rarely free. That may well be the case here. It is more than ironic that Feinberg's “working” for free as Pay Czar for the nation may indeed cost us a large portion of the bailout funds themselves as effective leaders abandon the enterprise and the bailed-out entities slowly disappear into never-never land. Feinberg is doing us no favor. He is performing no public service. Once more, we learn the old lesson that when you let the devil ride, pretty soon he wants to drive.

Business ventures rise and fall based on strong leadership. Effective, motivated leaders make the difference in success far more often than does the business idea itself or the glitz of the marketing package. By de-motivating leaders at a crucial time in these entities' lives and fights for survival, the federal government (or perhaps merely Mr. Feinberg since he has yet to speak with the White House at all) is putting into place the road to failure rather than the road to re-payment.

All in all, what we are learning (or re-learning for those of us who have known it all along) is that the more the government tinkers in private business the worse the results. Very simply, Washington wants the fruit of the harvest without the tree or the farmer who produced the fruit in the first place. In doing so, they will remove the farmers who know how to produce the harvest, and they will thereby eventually kill the tree that produces the very fruit Washington desires to eat.

From farming back to baseball. Umpires officiate. Players play. When the two roles get confused or conflated, only bad things can result. And taxpayers will be left holding the bag in the end. Again.

Have not shared some of the most colorful emails in a while. But last week I mentioned in passing the severe punishment Michael Vick faced - I mentioned this as a part of the discussion around Rush Limbaugh and his being "punished" for some persons' opinions that he is a racist.

Nevertheless, Michael Vick still stirs emotions unlike anyone else. A brief mention by me and a rousing response from a listener named Melissa.

Melissa berates my alleged lack of compassion for dogs (actually it is a compassion for men who have done everything that justice has asked and still get reviled) in a, well, not so compassionate way. Enjoy!

I heard you on your show say that vick was punished enough and too severely; I strongly strongly disagree he has not been punished at all in my opinion. To me he will not be punished until he is put in a cage with a bunch of mean pitbulls and they are allowed to tear his balls off! You must have a chunk of ice in your chest that you do not feel compassion at all for the dogs mistreated. WIMPS like you need to be shot in the head!

Powerful story at cnn.com yesterday. Sad but moving account of the death of Spc. Stephan Mace. CNN focused on his mother's loving act of traveling with his body on the last leg of his return trip home - from Dover, DE to Purcellville, VA. She said, "I brought him into this world, and he was my baby. I thought it was my responsibility as a mother to bring him home."

Stephan was killed in the massacre on October 3 at a remote American outpost in Afghanistan, an outpost scheduled to be closed because of its dangerous location. Closed too late for the 8 soldiers killed there. He was buried last week in Arlington with full military honors.

CNN included, at the end of the story but not in the headline, the powerful account of Mace's faith, even as he died. Here are the words from the article. Powerful stuff.

Mace was awarded six medals for his service, including a Bronze Star and a Purple Heart. But for his mother, the most precious is the medal of St. Christopher, the patron saint of travelers, that her son wore into battle.

She gave him the medal when he was 15 and preparing for a trip to South Africa. Now, after speaking to one of Mace's friends who survived the outpost attack, Adelson knows her son reached for that medal in his last moments. She was told that in his last moments alive, Mace took off his medal and gave it to his fellow soldiers.

"That's how Stephan was," Adelson said. "Here this kid is dying, and he was more worried about the other soldiers that he took his St. Christopher off and gave it to them."

She has also learned her son lived for about half an hour after sustaining wounds to the chest and leg. Adelson finds this detail comforting.

"I'm glad Stephan didn't die right away because he was allowed to give that one gift to his unit and give them the St. Christopher and that he also was able to feel God come to him and take him away," she said. "That he was able to ponder and have a last chance, a last moment, to think about his family and have God take him."

I have been a reader of Atlantic magazine for a long time. So it was a really nice surprise to see that one of their writers noticed my blog/TownHall column about Obama's Nobel Prize.

I still insist he should give it to Hu Jia in China. But a good step in earning the prize would be to remove our American soldiers from Afghanistan. We no longer have a moral justification for what we are doing there.

A friend of mine reminds me often that we are at our best when we dig down deep to live with self-control. The moments we are most proud of often come because we said no to a lot of things and said yes to the one thing that mattered most. We sacrificed the good in order to experience the best.

For example, to lose weight, you have to keep the goal in mind. Saying yes to weight loss means saying no to that piece of chocolate cake or to that extra serving of mac and cheese. Self-control.

To win a championship requires the same thing. Saying no to that lazy snooze on the couch and that lounging feeling that comes when practice should be occurring instead. Saying yes to one important goal means saying no to a lot of smaller things. Good things but not the one best thing.

I've been writing a book after procrastinating for far too long. Started getting up early each day to say yes to that one goal of a book I have been wanting to write. Saying yes to that means saying no to some other good things that get in the way of that one best thing.

The same is true for our spiritual lives as well. To draw close to God, to really seek Him each day, means to say no to some other things or habits that get in the way. Some of those other things or habits are not bad; in fact, they are good. But they are not the one best thing.

The difference between good and great? Self-control. Discipline. Not always fun but true.