Another Modest Proposal

People are living longer, and they have more medical bills. This is generally a good thing, especially for older people like me. However, the funds for the available medical help are limited, and there are many instances in which people are denied medical help that might save their lives because there are simply insufficient funds.

I object to using public funds to provide medical assistance to people who don't deserve it. It seems to me that when people engage in behavior which they know will cause illness or death, they should not be covered for medical expenses by Medicare. Examples are easy: Smokers should not be covered for illnesses that are the direct result of smoking, such as emphysema or lung cancer. Motorcyclists who ride without helmets should not be covered for head injuries sufferred in a motorcycle accident. Drug abusers should not receive coverage for drug-related illnesses. And so on.

I don't object to people being irresponsible. I object to being required to subsidize the medical problems caused by their irresponsibility. I object to responsible people being denied medical services because the money that those services would cost have been spent on people who voluntarily undertook the risks of their behavior.

We are going to have to deny some medical services because of fund shortages anyway. I am only proposing that we handle this proactively and decide that we can't afford to subsidize self-destructive habits and hobbies.

The fallacy of romantic love

We had several marriages in the family in the last year or so. Grown children, grandchildren, all in love, all getting married. It's charming and even touching to watch. They promise to love and honor one another. They clearly feel passionately about one another. They announce that they will love each other forever.

From that last sentence, you might easily think that love has something do with getting married and with staying married. We're in an age of romance. We like the idea of passionate feelings sweeping inhibitions away. We like the fantasy that such feelings can endure "forever". People "fall in love" and get married on the basis of such passion and frequently expect to stay married on that basis. The success rate for that belief system is not very high. We have begun to recognize that romantic love is not a good basis or predictor for a lasting marriage. In fact, we might find ourselves singing "What's love got to do with it?"

Part of our difficulty, as usual, lies in the multiple meanings of the word "love". Romantic love is a feeling, and like all feelings, waxes and wanes with time. Usually it includes a fantasy of a perfect union, a closeness unmatched since before our birth. It thrives on mutual admiration and on the capacity to ignore or discount flaws in the other person. Being thought lovable, even being thought perfect and wonderful, was (and is) a pretty intoxicating experience. In particular, when the participants had previously fairly low self-esteem, being in a "romantic" relationship in which they were seen as flawless and perfect had a disproportionately huge effect on their ego. That kind of love, romantic love, can be addictive in the extreme. When romantic love is combined with sexual passion it is one of the most exciting and gratifying experiences one can have.

However, romantic love is not only a feeling that passes and changes as feelings always do, it is based on a fantasy of perfection and mutual adoration that can't be sustained in the real world. It doesn't take long until the image of perfection begins to show signs of damage. When marriages are based on total mutual admiration, they eventually (and usually sooner rather than later) fail. Small wonder that when reality re-enters the picture and the illusion of personal perfection is lost, the person may find him/herself looking for a fix elsewhere. The result is frequently infidelity or perhaps divorce and serial monogamy. The search for the fantasied ideal romantic partner can go on episodically forever.

People in a romantically loving relationship don't necessarily really love each other as individuals, flawed and human. They love the admiration they receive, and they are passionately grateful to the other person for loving them and for the huge ego-boost that such admiration causes. When one or the other person begins to focus on the flaws in their partner, the fantasy of being perfect in their eyes is destroyed, and the disappointment and accompanying anger is sometimes surprising and sudden. All relationships based solely on romantic love are doomed to failure. There is nothing wrong with romantic love. It is simply a terrible basis for an enduring, long-term relationship.

There are other kinds of love than "romantic". It's a shame we use the same word for both unhealthy ("romantic") relationships and the most positive and healthy relationship two people can have. The confusion causes many wrecked lives and much misery. Healthy forms of love have been described many times and in a variety of ways, which I won't bother repeating here. It suffices to say that when we use the word "love" in a healthy relationship, it includes the willingness and even desire to put the other person's welfare in a place of equal importance to one's own. Healthy loving relationships are intimate, trusting and affectionate. Healthy love involves a commitment, not a temporary feeling, and because commitments can be permanent, can remain constant. Loving feelings come, go and return in a healthy relationship but the committed relationship remains constant.

In our romantic age, "falling in love" seems to be a prerequisite for marriage. However, it wasn't that long ago (in my grandparents' youth) when couples married first and developed a lasting relationship later. Many or most of those marriages lasted the lifetime of the partners. "Arranged marriages" didn't require romantic love. They were working partnerships in a difficult world that helped both partners survive on a higher level than they could have achieved alone. The workload was divided between them. In many cases the partners developed a strong, respectful and genuinely loving relationship over time. In other cases, the partners sought the romantic love to which they felt entitled in other relationships outside the marriage.

Among other things, successful marriages are business partnerships. As in all partnerships, workloads must be balanced and rebalanced. Mutual trust and respect is required and have to be earned as well as given. Happily married partners have open-eyed, realistic love AND like for each other, and such liking is harder to find than romantic love by a long shot. Liking one's partner, as I am considering it here, is something that necessarily develops over time. When couples have a romantic love to start their relationship, perhaps the fantasy can buy them the time it takes to fall in "like" with their partner, and then the relationship has a chance at enduring. However, romantic love is a weak reed to lean on; it has an expiration date somewhere in the near future.

The Buck Stops Where?

I remember when the then President of the United States had a sign on his desk that read "The Buck Stops Here". Harry Truman recognized that no matter who gave him information or how he obtained it, the final responsibility for acting on that information was his, and his alone. He did not rely on the doctrine of "plausible denial". The buck simply stopped there.

Now we have a President who acted on flawed and erroneous information. It seems likely that he knew the information was unreliable at best, but for whatever reasons, he used the WMD idea to defend the aggression against Iraq. Now his support staff are acknowledging that their information was wrong, wrong to the point of raising issues of criminal culpability. Why does the buck not stop with Bush?

Having made a major error that cost many lives, he can, of course, dump the blame on his staff, his support staff, CIA and the like. He undoubtedly will, having neither the integrity nor honor of Harry Truman. But. HE acted on that information. It seems clear that a more honorable course of action would be for him to resign. I would prefer to see him impeached with the potential of criminal charges being placed against him. A resignation, however, would restore at least a trace of honor and the remnants of dignity to an increasingly tarnished and tattered office.

Perhaps it is time to begin thinking of reorganizing the election process. The Electoral College system is certainly inequitable and no longer an appropriate means. A four-year term of office allows a President whose reputation and effectiveness are damaged beyond repair to stay in office, like a corpse in a wheelchair, for far too long. Perhaps we could have a system, like the English (in some ways) that would allow for a popular vote of no-confidence, that would require the current government to step down and new elections to be held. If we had such a procedure in place, how long do you think Bush would have been able to remain in office?

Time and past time to resign, Mr. Bush. The best thing you can do for the country, your party and yourself, is to leave office now.