True Meaning of Christmas Symbols

Santa's Symbols Of Christmas

Just a week before Christmas I had a visitor. I had just finished the household chores late at night, and was getting ready to go to bed, when I heard a noise in the living room. Much to my surprise, Santa Claus himself stepped out from behind the Christmas tree, and whispered, "Shh. Don't be scared. It's all right."

I started to ask him what he was doing, but stopped in mid-sentence when I saw that his usual jolly manner was gone and he had tears in his eyes. He told me he was sad because children all over the world were not being taught the real meaning of Christmas.

He reached into his sack pulling out a small green Christmas tree. He said, "Teach the children that the evergreen tree remains green all the year round. Green is the colour of abundant nature around us and indicates the everlasting hope of mankind. God created trees to be of great service to people, providing wood to build homes, fires to keep us warm and to cook on, and paper to print books for us to learn from.

Santa reached into his sack again and pulled out a bright, shiny star, and said, "Teach the children the star was the heavenly sign of promise long years ago. God promised a Saviour for the world, and the star was a sign of the fulfilment of that promise. The countless shining stars in the night-sky still give us a reminder of that star so long ago telling of the birth of our Saviour.

Santa put the star on the top of the Christmas tree and took from his sack a glittering red ornament. He said, "Teach the children that red is the special colour of Christmas because it reminds us of the blood that was shed by our Saviour so that we could all gain Eternal Life, which is the greatest gift Heavenly Father can give us."

As Santa returned to his sack I heard a soft, tinkling sound and saw he had a bell in his hand. "Teach the children that in the old days animals were very valuable to people as they provided transport and food for them. They put a bell round the neck of each sheep or cow, so they could hear where they were if they got lost. In the same way God values all people, wherever they are, and they are never lost to Him. In some places church bells are rung on Christmas Day to proclaim the good news of this special day."

Once again Santa reached into his sack, and brought out a candle. "Teach the children that a candle was used in the old days to light the way so people could see where they were going. When it is dark we are afraid, but the light casts away our fears. Jesus came into the world and taught that He is the Light of the World. People used to put candles on Christmas trees, but nowadays we have coloured lights instead as they are safer."

Next Santa produced a candy cane. "Teach the children that the candy cane represents the shepherd's crook. This was a strong stick with a curved end that could be placed around the neck of a sheep that had slipped down the hillside, so the shepherd could pull it up to safety. The candy cane represents the helping hand we should show to others, and reminds us that we really are our brother's keeper."

Reaching deep into his sack Santa pulled out a Christmas wreath and said, "Teach the children that the wreath symbolises the eternal nature of love. It never stops or comes to an end. It is one continuous round of affection. It is made up of many colours, and many different items, and shows how different we all are, but how important each one of us is to the whole creation."

Santa then took from his sack some tinsel and ribbon and said, "Teach the children that tinsel adds brightness to Christmas just as the many kindnesses we do for others brings brightness into their lives. The ribbon is tied into a bow to remind us that our lives are intertwined with each other, and the help we give others is constantly returned to us in different ways."


Finally, Santa patted his sack and said, "There will be many gifts in this sack each Christmas, but the greatest gift we can give, or be given, is love. Love takes time and effort from us to give to others in the way they need it, to bring their potential into being. Love is not an advertising gimmick, but something we learn to do, and we must teach this to our children."

With this, Santa waved goodbye and left the same way he had come in, saying as he went, "Don't forget to teach the children the real meaning of the symbols of Christmas." As I watched him go, I was sure that this would be the best Christmas ever.

-- Author Unknown.

Last month, when congress was busy telling us that the Health care bill would only cost us $848 billion and reduce the deficit by $130 billion, i was a little confused by how that would work. I sent an email to an economics professor and this is his reply:

"What this means is that they are going to spend $848 billion dollars more than they currently do, but tax us an additional $978 billion dollars to do so (taxes on the wealthy, taxes on cosmetic surgery, taxes on generous insurance plans, and fines on employers or employees who don't offer or don't buy insurance). Doesn't sound as great when expressed in those terms, huh?
It gets worse. This calculation is only over ten years. As it turns out, the taxes kick in immediately, but the expenses (i.e. great new health care plans!) don't start for three more years. That gives revenue a head start. In the last 5 years, the plans don't raise enough taxes on a yearly basis to pay for the yearly additional expenses.
Or in other words, we get 5 years of "deficit reduction" followed by an eternity of deficit increases. It just turns out that the first 5 years of positives are just enough to compensate for the NEXT five years of losses.
The honest calculation would be to take the present value of all future taxes compared to the present value of all future expenses, but that will certainly come out as a net deficit.
One final twist of brilliance. I looked at the Congressional Budget Office report on the Baccus Bill, and a lot of the "savings" comes for changes in social security payments/receipts. In other words, they are predicting that people will work longer and collect benefits later because of these health plans (gotta work to avoid the public option?). That savings accounts for all of the $130 billion."

I can't help but wonder what we are getting ourselves into. . .

For those of you who claim that there is only one good plan being offered, I want you to read this reply from Senator Jon Kyle in regards to the Health Care Reform. Let's not let our congress rush us into a bigger mess than we are already in.

Dear Mr. Reed:

Thank you for contacting me regarding health care reform. I appreciate the opportunity to respond.

The U.S. health care system is the best in the world, spurring advancements in new medical treatments and technologies. Such innovation helps physicians treat and prevent diseases better than ever before, eradicates once fatal epidemics, and helps Americans lead longer, healthier lives.

Despite these advances, millions of Americans struggle to find affordable health insurance options. From 1999 to 2008, the average cost of a family health plan increased by 119 percent from $5,791 to $12,680. Meanwhile, workers' wages increased 34 percent during the same nine-year period. Ensuring access to quality, affordable health care is a laudable goal. I support targeted solutions that lower health care costs and improve health care by building upon, not completely dismantling, our health care system.

Unfortunately, many of the proposals being considered in the U.S. Senate will make health insurance more expensive, jeopardize Arizonans' current coverage, and expand the government's control over health care. While you will not find the words "ration," "withhold coverage," or "delay access to care" in the pending plans, that is what will result from the web of federally-dictated insurance reforms, new legal obligations, and provider reimbursement schemes that are part of them. Such policies centralize the power of medical decisions with politicians and bureaucrats, not patients and doctors, and they will result in the delay or denial of care.

There are three main problems with the Majority party's proposals: the implementation of a government-run insurance plan, the use of comparative effectiveness research, and spending.

Government-Run Insurance Plan

First, the Majority's proposals would create a new, government-run health insurance plan to compete against private insurance plans. The argument is that a government-run plan would give consumers a better range of choices and make the health care market more competitive -- "keep the insurance companies honest," as the President put it. However, well-respected, independent analysis provides evidence to the contrary. For one thing, a government-run plan would be subsidized by the taxpayers, giving the government plan a huge advantage over competitors. Yet, even government resources are not unlimited. To save money after tens of millions of people are added to the public plan, the government would cut reimbursement to doctors and hospitals, exacerbating the difficulty Arizonans' already encounter in trying to schedule doctor appointments. To make up for low government reimbursements to providers, insurance companies would have to charge more for private insurance, making it less attractive than the government plan.

Over time, there will only be room for the government plan according to the respected Lewin Group, as 119 million Americans would lose their current coverage. Remember, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were designed as independent "government-sponsored enterprises" to complement the private mortgage market. Now, Fannie and Freddie account for a combined share of 73 percent of mortgage originations in the second half of 2008. The two "government-sponsored enterprises" are now effectively owned and run by the federal government, after having sustained losses of over $100 billion last year alone. A Washington-run health care plan will do to the health care market what Fannie and Freddie did to the housing market.

Comparative Effectiveness Research

Second, the Majority's plan would create a new research entity to conduct so-called comparative effectiveness research (CER). CER is a mechanism used by medical professionals to provide information on the relative strengths and weaknesses of various procedures and treatments. In the hands of doctors, medical researchers, and other health professionals, CER can help patients and their own doctors make informed health care decisions. However, in the hands of government, CER can become a tool to delay or deny care. For example, the National Institute for Health and Clinical Effectiveness in Britain uses "cost-effectiveness research" to make health care decisions. By basing treatment decisions on cost rather than need, Britain prescribes fewer cancer drugs than any of the other big five European nations; its patients therefore have the lowest survival rate according to a May edition of National Review. The UK's system provides only half of the care for end-stage renal disease patients that we do in the United States. Obviously, such rationing of care is not something we should replicate in the United States.

It is telling that none of the Majority's proposals in Congress would bar the federal government from using CER to deny access to care. In fact, when I offered an amendment in April to explicitly bar the use of CER to ration care, it was defeated on a near party-line vote. I have now introduced a free standing bill to ensure that any information obtained through CER cannot be used to deny access to care. The Preserving Access to Targeted, Individualized, and Effective New Treatments and Service (PATIENTS) Act of 2009 (S. 1259) will protect the doctor-patient relationship and ensure access to the highest quality medical care. I will fight at every opportunity to ensure that any health care reform plan the Senate considers later this year protects patients' access to care.

Cost

Finally, the Majority's plans would cost between $1 trillion and $2 trillion, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. But even that may understate the true cost. Consider that Massachusetts enacted near universal health insurance in 2006, and costs have exploded, doubling from $630 million in 2007 to an estimated $1.3 billion just two years later. To deal with those costs, the state has decided to slow enrollment of beneficiaries and eliminate dental coverage for its poorest residents. A special commission, which was established by the state legislature, has now recommended limiting coverage to those health care services that government deems to be "cost-effective"-just like government-run health systems in other nations such as Canada and Great Britain do. This will quickly lead to rationing.

Furthermore, the plans would be financed by a combination of new taxes and cuts in Medicare spending, hurting seniors' access to care. The Medicare Trust Fund is already expected to reach bankruptcy by 2017, so taking money from Medicare to fund a huge expansion of health care benefits for others makes no sense.

Alternatives

Rather than upending the entire health care system, we should identify what specific problems exist and consider targeted solutions to lower costs and improve access to care. For example, medical liability reform must be part of any reform effort. Of course, malpractice lawsuits serve a valuable purpose for those who have truly been wronged, but malpractice law is often abused by some trial lawyers who flood courts with baseless lawsuits. The threat of these lawsuits against doctors is a big reason Americans' health-care premiums have soared.

Many physicians must purchase expensive malpractice insurance -- sometimes at a cost of more than $200,000 a year -- just to keep their doors open. Hudson Institute economist Diana Furchtgott-Roth estimates that 10 cents of every dollar paid for health care goes toward the cost of doctors' malpractice insurance, with much of the cost passed on to patients.

Additional costs are passed on as a result of the practice of "defensive medicine." Many doctors take extra, or defensive, precaution when treating patients, ordering tests or procedures that may not be needed, but will help protect them if they are sued. A 2008 study from the Massachusetts Medical Society reported that 83 percent of doctors said they order tests, procedures, and referrals solely as protection from lawsuits. According to a study by two Stanford economists, the use of defensive medicine increases Americans' medical costs by $100 billion a year.

In addition to tort reform, the federal government should remove barriers that limit consumers' ability to shop for quality coverage at a more affordable price. For example, the government should permit the sale of health insurance across state lines to increase competition among insurers. Small businesses should be able to band together to form small business health plans to strengthen their purchasing power and negotiate affordable rates and coverage options for their employees.

Additionally, individuals who purchase their own health insurance should receive the same tax incentives large businesses do. By promoting the use of Health Savings Accounts (HSAs), we could encourage more responsible health care spending and allow individuals to take their coverage with them when they move from one job to another. We should also incentivize healthy behaviors and encourage catastrophic coverage. Finally, we should allow each state to pursue innovative health insurance market reforms tailored to its own needs to encourage competition and choice.

I believe in the right of every American to choose the doctor, hospital, and insurance plan of his or her choice. No Washington bureaucrat should interfere with that right or substitute the government's judgment for that of a physician. Any health reform proposal should adhere to these principles.

I appreciate your sharing your thoughts on this important issue. Please stay in touch.

Sincerely,

JON KYL
United States Senator

I just found out that I can update my blog from my phone! So cool! Maybe I'll actually post to the blog now.