Arizona's misstep illustrates the divide between Christian denominations

The last thing economically strapped Arizona needed was a national debacle over its new immigration law, but the action now seems to be the flash point in the long-running debate on the issue.

My wife and I were in Arizona when the new, controversial law was passed. We own a second home there—and pay property taxes—because we have family in Arizona's beautiful West Valley; we like the area very much. We watched the debate up-close and couldn't believe what was happening. Now back in Texas where we live most of the year, we feel embarrassed by Arizona's misguided action.

Sadly, we also have a good idea of the roots of the issue.

The law looks not only vindictive against all Hispanics, but it smacks of revenge being taken out on innocent people over the messed-up financial situation the state has managed to get itself into. Arizona—like California, Florida, Michigan and some other states who led us into the Great Recession—is in dire circumstances. Anger over the financial mess oozes on top of the hot desert sands. Home prices there have plummeted to unbelievable depths. The majority of the mortgage-holders in the state are underwater. The state's unemployment rate is high. The state's legislature is struggling to figure out what to do with all the red ink. Its largest city, Phoenix, in January laid off about 10 percent of its police and fire departments as well as cut even more drastically other city services—merely a benchmark for what other smaller cities and counties in the state are doing.

Economic misery often produces cockeyed behavior—regrettably often directed at innocent bystanders. This new law clearly is in that league.

The amazing thing about Arizona's new immigration law is how it appears to be dividing the religious community. The National Council of Churches and its affiliated mainline denominations have turned out swinging at the law. The NCC has called the law unChristian, immoral, and probably illegal. The Evangelical denominations for the most part so far have remained silent on the Arizona debacle.

Native-born U.S. Hispanics we know are boiling about the new Arizona law. Their anger is not limited to their denominational affiliations. Just because they may look Hispanic, they now will be forced—in Arizona at least—to carry on them proof of their citizenship.

Foot-dragging on this issue by Evangelical and other church leaders could drive a huge wedge between them and the rapidly growing Hispanic population in this country.

The next time I travel to Arizona, I personally plan to carry my Native American documents along with my U.S. citizenship documents. If asked to prove my nationality (which is very unlikely since I have no Hispanic heritage), I will show my Native American papers and then ask the nationality of the interrogator. Unless he or she also is a Native American, I will ask whether his or her ancestors were really, truly legal when they intruded on this land. Many people conveniently forget that except for Native Americans, all other Americans are descendants of people who may not always have had the proper legal papers to enter this country. Many of the first Americans certainly didn't ask permission of the people who already lived here then.

I hope Arizona's leaders not only quickly return to their senses and repeal the law but that the attitude they have displayed toward the whole Hispanic community doesn't turn out to be contagious in the rest of the Great Recession-riddled country. The last thing America needs to do right now is to alienate its Hispanic population, its neighbor to the South, and the rest of us who do not want to see our Hispanic friends mistreated.

Health-care reform is absolutely necessary!

After 16 years of elder-care responsibilities, Kay and I have entered a new era in our lives in which all the family members of our parents' generation have now gone to be with the Lord. With the passing in May of the sole survivor at 102 that makes us now a part of the oldest living generation in our families.

During those 16 years we had our own health issues as well as had to watch over the health care needs of six different relatives. That gave us a lot of first-hand experience with America's health care system. We learned many lessons—much of which is now being played out these days in the national debate on health-care reform.

I am rather amazed at how some of the conclusions I reached during the past 16 years—that health-care reform is absolutely necessary—are now center stage in the public health-care reform debate. My positions on this issue track better with the Mainline Protestant denominations than with my historical Evangelical roots. Sadly, the two groups are severely polarized today on this issue, with the Mainline groups lining up for reform and the Evangelicals running pitched battles against it. Rather than looking for the "right" position or the biblical position, unfortunately today's Evangelical leaders seem unmovable in their allegiance to any position the Republican Party pronounces, including medical-care reform.

Take, for instance, the matter of the primary-care physician, a centerpiece in the reform discussions. Over the years we've chauffered elderly loved ones to just about every specialist you can imagine. But their primary-care physicians always remained our favorites. They were there through thick and thin, through one illness or trauma after the next, while specialists entered and left the stage in a dizzying cycle. Managing the medical bills for most of our crew, I always noticed one consistent fact: how much more the specialists got paid when contrasted to the primary-care doctors. And ofttimes I couldn't figure out why. I also wondered why we had to use specialists instead of requesting that the primary-care physicians treat all matters.

On a repeat visit to one specialist, the doctor asked our elderly loved one to hold up her hands and move her fingers back and forth. That was all. Very little conversation. No new prescription. Just show me that you can move your fingers. "Take Tylenol if the arthritis flares up again," the doctor said. A total of two minutes in this doc's presence. The bill: $200.00, most of which Medicare and her supplemental insurance policy paid and which was more than double what the primary-care doctor would have charged.

My favorite story about a specialist involves a young ob-gyn physician who was called in to evaluate something unusual on a hospital x-ray. Apparently he'd never before seen a partial hysterectomy, which was popular back in the 1940s—his grandmothers' era. He puzzled over what the remains he saw on an X-ray could be. Then much to everyone's surprise he recommended our elderly loved one start taking hormones to see if her long-dormant menstrual cycle would start again. Quipped the loved one, "Young man, don't you realize I am nearly 100 years old; that's the most ridiculous idea I've ever heard! We are absolutely not going to do that." The displeased doctor stomped off, leaving all of us in the room laughing and me dialing my cellphone to ask the primary-care physician to make sure the "specialist" was released immediately from the case.

Just because a doctor can do something and it's covered by a medical insurance doesn't mean he or she should do it! Common sense needs to prevail.

Besides the inequity in the payments to the primary-care physician, what I remember most were:

1. How a single-payer system would certainly save trees and lots and lots of confusion and time on the part of the individual and/or his/her caretaker. The blizzard of paperwork I had to sort through trying to make heads or tails of all the medical bills and all the paperwork doctors, hospitals, Medicare and the insurance companies could generate was ridiculous.

2. Clearer, simpler rules certainly need to be mandatory. Medical rules and mistakes today can be extremely confusing, contradictory, and very costly. For instance, doctors often forget to mention things such as Medicare's requirement that the oxygen level be 88 or less for Medicare to pay for oxygen—while nursing homes require doctors to unprescribe oxygen before they will remove it from a resident, even when their oxygen level returns to normal. So, guess who pays when oxygen is provided that Medicare and insurance companies say is not necessary and won't cover?

3. Health care ought to be a right rather than a privilege. Today money buys health care. Mention that an elderly person has both Medicare and a good supplemental health insurance policy and adequate resources and no doctor blinks twice at signing up the person for anything. And I mean anything! No test is spared when the financial formula is right. (Contrast that to a time more than 20 years ago when I was unemployed and without health insurance and a medical secretary demanded advance payment immediately for a minor checkup!) Ethically money should not be the determining factor in deciding whether someone gets medical care.

4. Clearer, cleaner, less how-much-money-can-the-medical-community-make rules are needed for end-of-life issues. A medical directive, medical power of attorney, and living will are all absolutely necessary today in order to avoid costly, unnecessary medical intervention. Medical personnel will bombard a dying loved one with every medicine, idea and device they can possibly think of regardless of cost, practicality, or reasonableness until someone screams "Enough is enough is enough!" Medical decisions need to be based on what is right, not on how much money medical institutions and personnel can make off people and their insurance providers at the end of life.

Do we need health-care reform in this country? Absolutely! The National Council of Churches recently rolled out an impressive array of religious leaders in this country who say the time is long overdue for a revision. On this particular issue, these religious leaders clearly are pointing in the right direction. They need to be heard.