Conference tecrus::mormonism

    Nor have I prayed about this, but I have always felt somewhat opposed
    to the government getting more involved in health care, because of the
    ineffeciency and inequity that seems to always be there as (mortal)
    governments try to distribute this kind of service.
    
    I once had a long talk with a Doctor from Canada about their
    "socialized medical" system. He frankly felt it is a good thing and
    that it really reaches those in need.
    
    My opinions are that such government social programs allow very little
    decision making responsibility to those close to the people. Therefore
    it reaches those that happen to match the criteria thought of by those
    that organized the program, but that it often if very cruel in not
    caring for someone who happens to be in a slightly different situation.
    
    I believe that the best organization for social programs is the one
    that allows the decisions to be made where the need actually exists.
    The best example of this I know of is the LDS Church welfare system.
    Other organizations tend not to be able to do this because of greed and
    corruption of the people administering the programs.
    
    I know that the Church Welfare does not provide for medical services in
    the normal cases, but I point it out as a contrast to my concerns about
    the government getting further involved in distributing services that I
    might need.
    
    Currently I feel inequities with the business backed "insurance"
    programs, For example schedules of fees that seem not to correspond
    with the prices actually charged. I am sure that such things would only
    become more rigid and centrally defined (read that as much worse) if
    the element of competition were removed by this being shifted to the
    government.
    
    I do not mean to suggest that I lack concern for my fellow man
    (generic) and that I don't wish to provide for the needs of others less
    fortunate. But I really don't like such charity being masked as
    something else. I think that very greatly invites abuses.  If things
    like medicaid are not meeting the needs, then let's address that, but
    not suggest that a "National Health Insurance" which is supposed to
    meet everyone's needs is the way to fix that problem.
    
    for what it's worth, my 2�.   :)
    
    Len
    

    The problem that I have with government involvement in social programs is
    that the government never really addresses the causes of the problem
    but only works on the symptoms. Most medical problems we have in this
    country and the related increase in expenses have derived from poor
    health habits like diet, smoking, drinking, etc.  While not an answer
    for everything the direction we receive does give us a better than
    average chance to avoid most of the health problems in this life.  And
    it also helps us to avoid many of the other problems associated with
    social programs.

    The other problem I have is that people want to extend their life with
    extraordinary medical means and at a very large cost.  I'm not real sure
    because I haven't had to choose for myself, but I think I look forward
    more to living in the next phase than I'm enjoying this one.  I don't
    have much desire to linger any longer than necessary.  In fact some
    days I think I've been here twenty years to long already.  Should have
    done what I was thinking of doing and signed on as a chopper pilot.

    Trouble is people want to have the choice to get themselves in trouble
    and then expect everyone including the heavens to get them out of it.

    And bottom line is we do help them.  But at the same time we endeavor to
    help them not make recurring mistakes if that is also necessary.  And in
    some instances that means not giving them more than is necessary or
    nothing at all.  The government doesn't know when or how to do that.

     a complicated issue.

    As the government becomes responsible for more and more, individual
    citizens have less and less disposable income, out of which could come
    charitable donations.  Also, we may be tempted to draw ourselves
    farther away from our less fortunate brethren, thinking "It's the
    government's job to take care of them."  That may be the worst thing 
    about government welfare programs, that they foster a sense of 
    separation.
    
    aq
    

    When in Denmark, I observed that socialized medicine seems to come full
    circle.  They saw health costs skyrocketing and that the poor had
    difficulty getting access to quality medical services.  They though the
    solution was socialized medicine.  So, medical services became
    socialized and all were guaranteed minimum medical coverage.  Then, people 
    found that "free" medical benefits were not without costs in addition
    to high taxes.  (At that time, income tax started at 40%.)  They also had 
    problems with things like having to wait a long time for critical 
    operations, having to pay "extra" for "cosmetic" things (like porcelain 
    for front tooth dental work as a trivial example) or having to pay
    extra for specific treatments.  Extra quality could be had, for a price.  
    The wealthy would get around it by either paying extra or flying to another
    country.  People in general were being hit with fees when they went to
    get medicine and such, not unlike what is done with HMOs now.  The
    situation came full circle with health costs skyrocketing and the poor 
    having difficulty getting access to quality medical services.  Only
    now, they also have an inefficient government acting as middle man and 
    taking its cut.
    
    I'm basically against socialized medicine because I've not seen it make
    costs cheaper and nor have I seen it ensure that quality is high.  I
    have seen programs like this put more money in the hands of government 
    officials who have then legislated it away in order to pursue their
    career objectives.  It becomes one of those programs that we are then
    told is failing but will succeed if only we can make participation even
    more widespread.
    
    Not too long ago Reader's Digest had an article on socialized medicine.
    It is not as successful as some would have us believe.  I, too, have a
    lot of empathy for those who cannot afford minimal medical care and
    would like to see some solution.  But, socialized medicine is not it.
    Imagine the good news of being eligible for "free" heart surgery needed 
    immediately to save your life.  But, the bad news is that you will have to 
    wait in line, cannot be assured of the quality of the operation and may
    likely be dead by the date of the operation.  This is a real problem in 
    some countries.
    
    As near as I can tell, there are few differences between letting the
    free market provide medical care and letting the government provide
    medical care.  Either way, the people at large wind up picking up the tab 
    for financially devastating illness and individuals get preferred treatment
    for a price.  But, among those few differences is the turning over of
    vast funds to government entities who are not known for efficiency or
    for prudent practices.  In fact, it seems the trend now to turn over
    some services to the private sector in order to increase service
    quality, reduce costs and generally improve efficiency.  Turning
    over medical services to the control of the government would be
    counter-productive by this reasoning.
    
    I don't have any solutions.  I'm not sure there are any, aside from
    people somehow becoming more generous, more caring, more trustworthy,
    and more careful and responsible in how they live.  Without this type
    of change, it really doesn't matter whether a medical care system is
    free-market or socialized.  It will fail to deliver quality, low-cost,
    timely medical service to everyone.
    
    Steve

I appreciate the comments so far.  I agree that governmental programs
frequently involve inefficiencies and corruption and bureaucracy, and I think
those are valid reasons to consider having social programs managed outside of
government.

However, conceptually at least, with proper legislation and with people who
live the moral code of the Gospel, those problems could be removed (don't hold
your breath waiting).  The issue I'm trying to think through is this:

    Suppose we had perfect government, i.e. very efficient &
    honest.  Would government be a desirable vehicle for social programs?
    If so, then the effort should be in eliminating waste and corruption
    from governmental programs rather than in preventing governments from
    instigating social programs.

With a system of perfect government in effect, I have one serious concern
about governmental social programs: free agency.  As long as tax money is used
for programs, and as long as we are required to pay taxes, then we are funding
social programs regardless whether we want to or not.  This bothers me.  I
think that people should fund social programs because they want to not because
they are forced to through taxation.

Anyone care to make the assumption of perfect government & share your thoughts
about governmental funding?

Allen

    Hmmm.  My definition of "perfect" government is that of a government
    that perfectly represents the will of the people.  So, even though a
    government has programs in place to take care of all of its citizens
    from cradle to grave, if it does not represent the will of the people
    then it is not perfect.  
    
    So, by my definition, the people have to will it that they will not
    allow anyone to do without food, shelter, medical care and so forth
    if the needy are to be cared for under a perfect government.  Ironically, 
    if this is the case, then it doesn't really matter what the government 
    programs are.  This is because the people will naturally fill in where the 
    government does not make provision.
    
    In short, I think it is the will of the people that is the primary
    factor in taking care of the needy and that the perfection of the
    government is a secondary concern.  
    
    Execeptions to this may include times that governments enslave their 
    people.  But, under such circumstances, such governments have seldom been 
    shown to work to increase the standard of living for constituents.  
    The Scriptures and history do indicate times when the people desired 
    enslavement ("We want a king!"), perhaps thinking that their standard of 
    living would improve and not realizing the awful conditions that can
    result.  Although there are examples of kings that ruled in fairness
    and responded to the will of a righteous people, this happy circumstance 
    tends to be the exception and not the rule.
    
    When I think of the Millenium, I think of a system of government that
    will be very similar to a tyranny.  But, as it's head we will have
    Christ and within its structure we will have people operating with
    pureness of heart and in the unselfish interests of all.  The structure
    is chosen because it is the simplest and most efficient way to govern
    people.  But, it is a structure that more closely resembles today's
    tyrannies than democracy or even socialism.  It is not the structure or
    the programs that will make that government perfect, but the fact that
    it will perfectly represent the will of the people.  The will of the people
    will closely represent the will of God, who will be the head of that 
    government.
    
    Steve

Hi Steve,

I shouldn't have used the phrase "perfect government" because it means 
different things to different people.  I was thinking in the context of
the previous replies in which people were critical of government programs
because of inefficiencies and corruption, and I inaccuractly called a
government that didn't have those problems a "perfect" government.

So, let me start over again and try to be more specific and accurate with my
words.

Suppose we had a government in which people were basically honest and in
which the bureaucracy and red-tape were low, thus invalidating the criticisms
of the earlier replies to this note.  Whether or not this government reflected
the will of a majority of the people 100% of the time is not important; 
actually, I don't think any government will do that, even when Christ becomes
the head of our earthly government, because we are different and have different
ideas about things, but that is a topic for another note.  Ok, so we have
an efficient and honest government.  In terms of the Gospel mandates to help
those in need, would programs from this government fulfil those mandates?

Or, should this government stay out of social program, and if so why?

Allen

                   -< Social programs: who is responsible? >-

Allen, etal;

	All you have to do is look at the Corporation of the Church of Jesus
Christ of Later Day Saints to see how a "perfect" government works and see what
programs a "perfect" government admins.  The Lord Jesus Christ designed the
government to be of the people, by the people, and for the people, knowing that 
the people were not perfect and not of one mind.

	The commandment to pay a full tithing is kept by less than 10% of the
membership of the church.  Of those who are full tithe payers less than 50% 
hold active temple recomends.  Yet, there is free agency, and the poor are 
cared for.  The church at one time used to "United Order" to see that all
of its members were taken care of equally.  Until all members are willing to 
share their surplus, the "United Order" will not work, even in the Lord Jesus
Christ's Government.

	I am in favor of more government involvment to take care of the poor.
If you can show me that the poor are willing to try to help themselves and not
be a slave to society.

Lee

    To Lee in .8
    
    Where did you get your statistics on tithing (less than 10%) and
    Temple Recommend Holders?
    
    I worked for the "Corporation of the Church" for a few years.  It is
    very much like any large corporation. There are 3 levels within that
    corporation, the General Authorities, who operate at executive levels,
    middle and first level managers (many of whom are ex-military -
    and you know what that means), and then the work force.
    
    
   Paul

>    Where did you get your statistics on tithing (less than 10%) and
>    Temple Recommend Holders?

   Paul,


	This information was in a talk by a Regional Rep in the National
Capitol Area.  Since I am not home, I cannot tell you who the Rep was, nor
the date and time.  Is this important?  The percentage is not as important
as the fact that of the "active members" not all, or even a majority, are
full tythe payers.  This point is purely to show that the church as a 
govermnent can function of the people, for the people, by the people, without
as much coruption as found in other forms of government.  Therefore, as I was
trying to point out, any social program for the benefit of the people, in this
form of government, would work.

	I am often not very good explaining things on paper.  I hope that
is understandable.

Lee

    In _The Miracle of Forgiveness_, Spencer W. Kimball touched briefly on
    our telestial situation, remarking that people would rather tax
    themselves than pay a voluntary tithing.  During the Millenium, I hope
    there will be tithing rather than taxes.  
    
    When the Savior reigns, it won't be tyranny because we will choose to 
    be one in purpose.  At no time will our free agency by removed or blocked.
    
    Granting your premise for sake of discussion, Allen, I still think that
    my answer in .3 applies.
    
    aq
    

Hi Ann,

I agree completely with your comments in .3

In .5, I expressed my concern that government programs are forced on people
via taxes, thus violating their free agency to choose to help or not help
those in need, and a result of this is the separation you spoke of--"It's the
government program and isn't my concern."  When people choose to help others
by forking out hard cash, then they have a direct interest and involvement in
the service, but when people just pay money each April 15 into the big black
hole known as the government, then we do become detached.

There is a trend in the Church that has this danger of our pouring money into
a black hole so to speak.  I'm referring to the general missionary fund.  If
I donate money to my Ward missionary fund to support a person I know, then I
have an interest in him or her--its my mission too, so to speak.  But when I
send money to SLC and never hear anything back, then I become detached from
the people being helped and the separation you spoke of begins to get a
beachhead.  There is an important difference, however, between this and taxes,
and that is the fact that I choose to send money to the general fund, while
I have little choice about taxes.  I do think it is important, however, that
the Church keep us informed in some way about the benefit that our money is
giving to the missionaries being helped.

Allen

    Granted I have not read all the replies to this note but the answer
    seems simple enough - based on a generalization from the Book of
    Mormon.  Government based social programs will work if the leaders are
    righteous and WILL NOT work if they are greedy etc.  If you vote for
    government based social programs (vs private led) then how can you
    guarantee that these programs will be run well?  The same is true for
    private based programs (eg- that greed will ruin them;  greed on the
    side of the providers and/or greedy receivers can ruin a good program).
    Just look at mal-practice suits etc. etc.
    
    In my opinion, its better to keep something like this out of the hands
    of those who might be seeking power and or money.  With private care I
    can put my dollars where I choose.  I think we would dearly miss our
    freedom to choose our own health care plan /doctor, should we happen to 
    lose the opportunity to make these choices.  Besides the odds are
    against you when you go with government vs private...meaning a few
    people controlling health care vs a large population of practicing
    doctors who have a vested interested in making you healthy...
    
    David

    Well, as far as tithing goes, I pay it because *I* need to pay it.  It's 
    one of those things that I know the Lord has asked for.  I would feel like
    a hypocrite asking the Lord for things in prayer if I refused to give
    to Him that which He asks of me.  Further, I have testimony that paying
    an honest tithe makes things work out better - I get blessed as the
    Bible promises.
    
    Now, taxes.  That's a whole 'nuther story.  I pay it because the government 
    "needs" it.  I would rather the government stay out of "social programs".  
    Something bothers me about the government being generous with tax money.  
    I can be quite generous on my own, thank you.  Government systems are 
    notorious for ransacking the coffers for selfish or dishonest purposes.
    Sure, they talk a lot about how they are being as generous as they can 
    to the poor, being limited in their generosity only by the resistance
    of those bad ol' taxpayers.  Have you ever once heard of taxpayers
    being thanked for generous government social programs?  I never have.  
    I've only seen politicians and administrators heaping upon themselves
    such personal honors.  I render unto Caeser that which is Caeser's.
    
    I like the Church "system" better.  Since I'm not "into" having lots of
    worldly goods (at least, I don't think I am) I wouldn't mind going to a
    United Order sort of system.  My worldly needs mostly have to do with my
    family's needs and with my ability to earn.  The "government" would have to 
    be one that I could trust.  There would be no more of this raiding the 
    coffers and gouging me for more taxes so that the government could be more
    generous.  They'd have it all.  Any problems with administration would
    lie squarely with them.  And, if they were less than honest, they would 
    eventually have to answer to God.  They do now, too, but only after
    they die.  During the Millenium, they might have to answer a little
    sooner and in the flesh ...  
    
    When I ran for office last year, I/we really pushed for accountability in
    government.  Our opposition carried the banner and gave it a new
    ambiguous meaning which better fit their agenda.  Of course, the issue of
    accountability in government all but died during the elections.  It was
    replaced with a campaign of fear and double-talk.  For example, there
    were three gubernatorial candidates.  Only one was pro-life with the
    other two being pro-choice.  The state pro-life organization
    effectively endorsed one of the pro-choice candidates.  I confronted
    them about this.  They denied that it was really an endorsement, but
    the media and the public took it as such.  They did this out of fear
    and lack of ability to hold to principles in the face of fear.  Voters
    responded in kind.
    
    Anyway, if there is to be a "perfect" government and if this does not
    mean a government that perfectly represents the will of the people, I
    would at least settle for a government that is utterly accountable to
    the people.  Such accounting will make it possible for the people to
    fill in the gaps where the government provides no social program
    support.  They would know exactly where the gaps were and where
    inefficiencies were so that they could take the steps necessary to
    assure that the needy are cared for.  
    
    Given this "perfect" government, the needy could be cared for
    regardless of the social programs the government put in place.  It
    would still depend on the generosity of the people - NOT the generosity
    of government officials with tax dollars.
    
    
    Steve

One of the reasons that people give for governmental programs is that is where
the money is, i.e. individual contributions aren't sufficient and tax money is
needed to get the volume of funding required to solve the world's problems.
It seems to me they are selecting a bad solution to a real problem.  I think
the Gospel teaches individual responsibility, and if individual contributions
aren't sufficient, the better solution would be for governments to educate
its citizens to be more motivated to help those in need.

I think two things are involved here: Helping those in need, and being the
helper.  Governmental programs can accomplish the first (albeit at a high cost
due to the inefficiencies and corruption we're discussing), but it can't do
the second, because it uses force to get the money, force in the form of
required taxes; we need to remember that force is Satan's method and has been
since the War in Heaven.  I think the second thing can be accomplished only
when people voluntarily give of themselves to help others.

Allen

    I'll go along with that.
    
    Steve

I'd like to diverge a slight bit.

One of the basic principles of our government (US) is that we, the People, have
relinquished certain God-given rights we have to the Government, and these 
powers and rights is what gives the government the power to function. That's
what the Declaration of Independance is all about. The only "entities" that
have rights to begin with are natural people. Rights are essential to exercising
Free Agency. Governments basic function should be to protect our rights.

Examples - our right to justice when we are wronged is, for the most part,
placed in the care of our system of justice (a.k.a. "Criminal" Justice System,
but that's another issue). Our rights concerning travel are partially protected
in the commerce clause. our rights to intellectual property is protected by
the Patent and Trademark (?) clause. etc. etc.

I have a real problem with the government taking money from natural people
(effectively by force), i.e. income tax, retail sales tax. If I, as a natural
person, don't have the power to go into your pocket, take money, and give it
to someone else (who I, a faceless, nameless, bureaucrat decide is in more need
of it than you), how on earth did the government get that power? They had to
amend the Constitution to make it happen. It's all very wrong to me.

That's the intellectual argument. No big-name politician will speak to those
issues (ok, very few - certainly none of the democrats running for president
these days) mostly because they can't.

The economic arguement has been articulated before here - government can't do
such things in it's current state without a massive "cut" in the dollar, i.e.
for every dollar spent, really only about $.60 ends up where it's supposed to.

In the perfect order, these things will work, as has been mentioned before,
because of the lack of power seekers, and greedy people; they will be 
supplanted by those who will live according to Gospel principles. Someday..

Bryan

As I read of the growing number of homeless and the tens of thousands of
additional layoffs during the coming year, I'm overwhelmed at the magnitude
of the scriptural injunction for us to care for those in need.

I think history has shown that individuals and Corporations won't respond
adequately to care for those in need, and I'm afraid that we'll (we meaning
Society in general) have to depend on Governmental programs to satisfy our
social responsibilities.  I use the word "afraid" because of the political
corruption and inefficiencies that saturate governmental programs.

I guess its a case that if we (society) avoid our responsibilities, then
the worst-case solution takes effect.

Allen

    But we *are* big brother.  These thoughts are weighing somewhat more
    heavily than usual lately, I suppose because of my own somewhat straitened
    circumstances.  I was touched by something in our Relief Society Home
    and Family Education lesson last Sunday:  we think money will cure
    societies' ills but this approach has not so far been markedly
    successful; Christ changes individuals and they change their
    societies.
    
    aq
    

    Good point.  Personally, I rather enjoy it when a problem can be boiled
    down to a money problem.  But, too often the desire to be able to boil
    it down to a money problem clouds rational thinking.  Most of the
    serious problems I deal with are not money problems but problems
    requiring other resources (time, effort, faith, love and so forth).
    I just don't "get it" when others (rich or poor) feel that most, if not
    all, problems can be solved with money.
    
    Steve

    
    You mean that you can't solve ALL problems by throwing money at them?
    :-) ;-)
    
    Seriously, my wife and I were watching a home improvement show called
    Hometime, and they did a special segement on something called Habitat
    for Humanity. The premis for Habitat is that volunteer's are brought in
    to restore a run-down house. The house is sold to a lower income family
    and financed through Habitat with no interest. The thing that is really
    appealing to me is the fact that the new homeowner is expected to work
    on the house with the volunteers and I believe assist in restoring
    others homes as well. Does anybody out there in Noteland have any
    expeirence with Habitat for Humanity? It looks like a good way to not
    only help your fellow man, but a chance to bone up on carpentry skills
    as well.
    
    take care,
    f.m.

I've found reading this very interesting. It is my feeling in general 
that governments were intended by the Lord as servants of the people, 
and not vica-versa. Unfortunately, history has proven time and again 
that the opposite will occur, and the general population of a country 
has found itself mastered by a headless monster.

As these governments grew more and more enormous, the common people's
ability to act of their own free will was reduced completely: Their 
capacity to act was suspended, or, in some cases, revoked.

I think that we are very much at a similar juncture ourselves. The U.S. 
Goverment's charter is to protect the rights of the people. Not some, 
but all. However, special interest groups have in so many areas gained 
the ear of our so-called representatives. And, unfortunately, too many 
of those representatives are not in leadership positions to serve, but 
to further their own political agendas.

Conclusion. We will never get what we want from a government, at least 
not in a human context. It would be nice to think that a new, and 
improved humanity can rise up from the ashes of what we have now, even 
here in the U.S., but I don't expect it.

That's secularly speaking, of course. I do believe that the poor can be 
helped, and it ought ot be done by us. Allen, you mentioned earlier on 
the idea of institutions. I tend to think that any operation that relies 
wholly on its own insight is doomed to failure. It is the responsibility 
of the individual to make the difference in other's lives.

How does the Church fit into this schema? Note that in the United Order, 
and even with the tithes and offerings system used now, the Bishop's 
role is administrative. He does not demand the offerings of the member, 
the member willingly places it in his hands. That he may ask in special 
cases is true, but he will not necessarily divulge the reason for the 
need.

Which brings us to trust. Of course, we all see the need for helping 
those less fortunate than ourselves. But, at least in my case, one can't 
help but wonder if the person (or people) we are observing a truly in 
need, or the victims of their own caprices.

For instance, many, many complaints have been lodged against the cur- 
rent U.S. welfare system because of the abuses. In a landmark legis- 
lation, New Jersey is looking at mandating a maximum number of children 
for women receiving welfare. How it be that a system intended to ad- 
minster to the NEEDS of the people has suddenly become an organism for 
controlling some part of the population's growth?

Anyway, back on track, I hope. We see and hear of abuses, and want some- 
one qualified to take our offerings (tithes or taxes, voluntary or in- 
voluntary), and administer to the needy. Plus, we are ourselves on a 
daily basis imbroiled in a struggle to provide. The welfare system is 
also intended to provide, for those with a real need, and only until 
they get back on their feet.

This is not happening, and is a gross violation of the trust we have 
placed in our representatives. How can it be that any new or additional 
programs can resolve this? I for one do not believe that our answer lies 
in supporting national health care, or by levying greater taxes for 
existing programs.

Until the people are back in control of this government, all hopes for 
well-administered health plans, or anything else, for that matter, 
should probably be put on hold.

I think things can be fixed, but I am very skeptical about the real 
concerns voiced by our legislators. The Book of Mormon shows quite 
clearly what happens to a government where law is the ruler, and people 
the slaves. Here we are, many years later, and the same holds true.

Until the floors and corners are swept out, I fear that the poor will 
not get the help they need, nor will the taxpayers get any satisfaction 
from their forced donations. If ever they was a way to isolate a person 
from an issue, have them pay for the privilege. If you want to see a 
person get to the point where he looks at the poor with disgust, tell 
him that he must pay: Don't let him think that there's really anything 
he can do personally.

Wow, what a bunch of babbling! To put this all in a nutshell: We can 
look at ways to help on an individual and family basis. We can look for 
families, church or community, who obviously need help, and help them. 

If we're not sure, we can let our Bishop know that there are things we'd 
like to do, whether financial or talent-wise, and then do them. We could 
certainly be more involved on a community basis, but start with the easy 
and obvious, and work your way up from there.

We CAN make a difference: Remember what Pres. Hinkley said about the 
amount raised by the Church in the special fasts for Ethiopia? Wasn't it 
over 13 million dollars that was raised? He also made some other remarks 
which elude me right now. I'll have to check my notes, but one of them 
that comes to mind was that if we all paid our tithing, there would be 
no poor IN THE WORLD. (I'll check that.)

Ken de Montigny

I think that all of us in the Church are suffering under an illusion of a
sort.  We like to think that we are independent and are taking care of
ourselves.  We like to think that we are avoiding welfare programs and are
avoiding the "dole".  However, to a degree, this is an illusion.

Nobody in this day and age can be independent.  The cost of health services is
rising so much, that most persons who use only their own resources are having
a difficult time affording medical insurance, and in the future I think they
will find it impossible to do so.  I have a friend who is a self employed
carpenter.  He pays $5000/year for his medical insurance.  Within the next
few years, he'll probably find that that 5K was "cheap".

All of us DECies are dependent on our employer for health protection.  Sure,
we can take pride in not depending on the government dole, but I'm not sure
that an employer dole is much better.

If we're going to live off of a dole (and all of us are), which dole is the
better one?  Government or employer?  I prefer the employer one because it is
more efficient since my employer has to make a profit to stay in business.
I also prefer the employer dole because I have some small choice about whom I
work for, and I like to make decisions about my life rather than having others
make those decisions.  But, from the moral viewpoint, I don't think there is
much difference between a government dole and an employer dole--in either case
we're becoming dependent on others for our temporal welfare.  Unfortunately,
our society is such that we don't have much choice about the matter and our
choice will be reduced in the future.

Allen

    Well, Allen, it seems to me that there is a[t least one] difference. 
    Digital compensates employees for their labor/production on behalf of the
    corporation.  The government has some programs that are compensatory,
    such as medical coverage for military personnel, but some are doled
    out, not as compensation for (perceived) value received.  To me,
    even from the moral viewpoint, there is a considerable separation
    between a dole and earned benefits.
    
    I agree that our choices are likely to be reduced in the future.
    
    Another thought:  even if I were independently wealthy, or lived in a
    society which truly practiced the United Order, I would be dependent on
    others for much of my temporal welfare.  I grow almost none of my own
    food, and absolutely non of the materials for my clothing, but I don't
    feel that I'm accepting dole handouts from farmers, manufacturers, and
    merchants when I exchange the fruit of my labors (money) for the fruits
    of their labors, e.g. food and clothing.  Nor do I feel that they are
    receiving dole handouts from me by accepting my money in exchange for
    their merchandise.
    
    Interesting thoughts...
    aq
    

Hi Allen!

>I think that all of us in the Church are suffering under an illusion of a
>sort.  We like to think that we are independent and are taking care of
>ourselves.  We like to think that we are avoiding welfare programs and are
>avoiding the "dole".  However, to a degree, this is an illusion.

To carry the anaolgy a bit further, consider King Benjamin's address. In 
it, he emphasized that each of depends on the Lord to survive on a day- 
to-day basis, because He "lends" us breath. Not only this, but any time 
we obey a commandment, He immediately repays us, so we are still in His 
debt.

I think the illusion that we as Saints are guilty of buying into is, as 
you have stated, we can be independent. I fully believe that the Lord 
wants us to be God-dependent. If we truly extend ourselves into the 
realms of deep faith, we put our whole reliance on Him. And, as we do 
so, He will bring us together with others who are like-minded.

The ultimate in a God-dependent/interdependent society was the City of 
Enoch, wherein dwelt the pure in heart. I wonder what is going to happen 
in the hext few years to get us there?

Ken