What if we have been looking at money the wrong way? What if it were not a commodity to be gathered, but simply a means -- a series of numbers -- that we use to reflect our common value system? We pay more for an hour of a brain surgeon's time than we pay for the plumber's time because we as a community value the work of the brain surgeon more than the work of the plumber. (I am not saying what we SHOULD value, just that we DO value it this way. One could certainly make the case that the plumber's abilities contribute more to a greater number than the brain surgeon's...but I digress...)

If we saw money only as a snapshot of our value system, then every price setting would become revelation of our convictions as a group. And instead of striving to gain money, as though it were a commodity in itself (currency traders notwithstanding), focus would be shifted to how one can EARN A LIVING. The only use for money is to trade for other things, and the only way to gain the power to trade is to have something to offer (a trade, a skill, an ability). We like to think that people can do whatever they like, and that they should be able to live the way they would like to live. But what if we were to think that one needs to earn a living again?

Four votes shy...

So why is this health care bill so important? Why are so many so up in arms about passing it or defeating it?

Say you arrived on Mars, and found two groups of Martians, the Hoes and the Whiches, heatedly debating the subject of whether or not to carry red rocks in their pockets. You might understandably lack any real appreciation for the subject, not living there, or knowing any of the reasons for or against the practice.

But say you learn along the way that the Hoes outnumbered the Whiches in their parliament, so that the Whiches didn't really have any chance to win a vote unless many of the Hoes voted with them. So the entire debate is within the Hoes' contingent.

Those who are against the issue argue that this is a bad idea because it would have terrible effects on the financial life of the population, reduce individual liberty, increase government control over more of life, and would go against the laws they already have on the books about red rocks. They offer that if given the chance they would be pleased to consider addressing the problem (whatever it is) together, but that this way is bad for them all.

Those Hoes in favor of this issue are lying in their press releases, knowingly overestimating the benefits of carrying rocks, and ignoring the costs, as well as offering huge payoffs, court appointments, kickbacks, exemptions, promises of support in the next elections, and even threats in order to purchase enough votes from the opposition Hoes (they don't even TRY to win any Whiches to their cause) to win the vote.

Not knowing anything about the details of the plan, which side would you be more attracted to?

The point of the exercise is to see how important the MEANS of winning the debate are to you. Do ends justify means? No matter what you think about the idea that health care should be a right for all, are you willing to compromise your souls in order to have it? I believe there are those in our country today that don't believe enough about virtue to allow it to alter their choices.