Ideas

To my mind by far the most important and interesting type of conversation is about ideas.

In our modern era we seem to have lost that ability. Maybe its because these days we have so much extraneous media noise.

 

The best discussions arise when there are differences of opinion. Preaching to the choir gets to be boring and produces no useful outcome. Vigorous discussions with those with different points of view are both entertaining and informative. There is nothing that makes one revisit and refine one's own concepts than reasoned opposition.

 

There is almost universal agreement that the economics of medical care is problematical and should be changed. It's disappointing to me that intelligent people of good will, experience and great interest can't discuss ideas that might lead to solutions.

 

I'm just finishing John Goodman's latest book on the subject titled "Priceless". Goodman is an economist who has spent years working in the health care industry. He is known as the father of the Health Savings Account, although he points out that this is not accurate since he got the idea from someone else. The book is a treasure chest of information and ideas. He states that one of his major disappointments is that the HSA concept has become identified with the Republican party.

 

The bitter division in our present day politics is lamentable. It is interfering with rational, practical discussion and problem solving. The phenomenon that one can immediately predict the opinion of another on every subject based on knowing his political party affiliation is a sorry situation. How has this happened to us in this country of free people?

Marriage - Separation of Church and State

The state (or society in general) in our liberal tradition has an interest in maintaining a stable population and in child rearing. This requires maintainance of the family as a basic unit. (Our society does not favor child rearing by the community). These days having children is increasingly a planned event and and least in the socioeconomic sense is a sacrifice by the child rearers that has benefit for other members of the community. It is appropriate therefore for the state to compensate for this sacrifice by offering tax and other economic advantages such as shared medical insurance and social security benefits. Such benefits are not appropriate for other relationships between adults which do not involve child rearing (ex, a gay couple or a childless married couple). Both individuals in such a relationship are capable of supporting themselves and giving special consideration in this case is not only unnecessary but is a loss to others who must bear the cost. This consideration by the state should not be called "marriage" which has a traditional and religious meaning.

In fact in my opinion the state should take a more positive role to enforce appropriate child rearing in the case of those who take on a family unit relationship either through procreation or adoption. This would be far preferable to the present day tendency for the state to substitute for the family.

Matters such as inheritance and power of attorney can and should be handled by other legal methods than state designation of "marriage" which implies a laundry list of legal arrangements that could be handeled separately by a simple arrangement such as with the "living will".

"Marriage" should be an individual, private matter, either sanctioned by religion according to individual moral beliefs or by a simple declaration by the persons involved. Perhaps this would help to end the confusion over what to call the increasing number of cohabiting couples.