By Nancy Patrick

I just had a shocking revelation about myself. As I looked through old essays I had written years ago, I thought I might find one to revise and send to Loretta for Spirit of Abilene. I found the title “An Immodest Proposal: A Perspective on the Survival of the United States.” 

I thought, “What a great title!” As you might know, the title refers to the 18^th century Irish writer Jonathan Swift’s essay entitled “A Modest Proposal.” 

Swift espouses his theory that eating the babies of Ireland’s poor would go a long way in solving Ireland’s dire poverty and social deprivation. Swift’s proposal outlines the grievances Ireland had against its English oppressors and offers his “modest” proposal that would solve three major problems: (1) relieve the economic pressure of the poor in trying to feed too many mouths (2) provide food for the starving population and (3) provide income for the parents of the babies they sold for food.

One might imagine the horror of readers who failed to recognize Swift’s satire. Rereading my own essay horrified me to see my arrogance, ignorance, and insensitivity regarding the controversial social issues in today’s world.

I wrote the paper twelve years ago at the age of sixty-three. At that time, I had retired from my teaching career and spent most of my time caring for my parents who shared a room in a nursing home. I had taken care of all their domestic, medical, and legal needs for the ten years prior to their move to nursing care, so I had already worked through many government agencies dealing with these aspects of life.

In my old essay, I expressed my opinions about  Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and public education. My unemotional, heartless, and judgmental tone produced shame and surprise at my callousness. 

Even though I can still see the logic in many of my theories, the past dozen years have mellowed my attitudes. I think perhaps seeing the extreme differences between Democratic and Republican leadership has helped me balance my ideas and helped me shift from extreme reactions to more moderate attitudes.

For example,  I now appreciate Social Security since it provides some of my monthly income. At the same time, I realize that the program must have tight reins in order to ensure its continued existence for future generations. To do this, individuals need to plan carefully regarding their retirement and avoid abuses of the allowances for continued work after claiming the benefits.

I also enjoy the advantages of Medicare. I realize that some of Medicare’s restrictions have resulted from people’s misuses of the system in the past. My own parents viewed the program as free medical care, going from doctor-to-doctor seeking “cures” for ailments that had no cure. At that time, Medicare’s guidelines allowed them to have just about any procedure they asked for.

I now live within stricter guidelines. Medicare scrutinizes all the medical procedures I have and drugs I take. Although the restrictions can annoy, they protect the solvency of the system. Patients sometimes find it hard to accept the government’s control over medical aspects of their lives; however, I remember a time when none of these government programs existed.

Medicaid presents many subtle and confounding questions as well. Many middle-class families will need Medicaid if their elderly parents require nursing home care. Some people with resources use estate lawyers to protect a portion of their parents’ assets, but many do  not. 

Estate lawyers, with a hefty fee, can help families protect assets if the family seeks help early enough. Howver, most estate planning involves meeting time requirements to shelter assets. Many people do not know this, so when parents enter nursing homes, they pay out-of-pocket until their assets reach no more than $2,000.

Many people feel that this “loophole” provides unfair and unethical actions and “cheats” the system. They question the morality of protecting their inheritance and letting the government pay for their parents’ nursing care. I understand that perspective, but I also understand the other side of the issue—why not use the legal means available provided by congressional legislation?

Another concern I had and still have relates to public education. I acknowledge the problems in the public school system, but as a retired teacher, I firmly believe public funds need to support the public schools rather than provide vouchers for private school. If we provide tax dollars for private education, we promote elitism. 

One other issue I didn’t address in the earlier essay relates to immigration. I have always supported the “melting pot” idea that promotes the United States as a safe haven for the world’s oppressed people. 

However, I understand that modern concerns related to terrorism and prejudice have created an environment of fear, hatred, and violence. Many feel the only way to protect the American way of life requires closing our borders and becoming isolated from the rest of the world. 

I admit that my ideas are personal and unresearched. They result from my worry over the state of the nation. I receive daily emails from various organizations to which I belong, all giving me websites protesting cuts in funding for these organizations. 

I began thinking about these organizations, all of which I believe serve important functions. If I’m not willing to take a cut in any of the funding for my pet projects, why should you take a cut? Multiply that idea by millions. No one wants to take a cut. It’s human and oh-so-easy to look at everyone else’s programs and relegate them to nonessential status while at the same time elevating my own programs to the essential column.

What are we going to do? Are we going to bankrupt our own country and leave our children and grandchildren in an impoverished economic state? These issues are complex, emotional, and involve personal values. I pray for wisdom, patience, and humility for leaders who must grapple with our political dilemmas.

Nancy Patrick is a retired teacher who lives in Abilene and enjoys writing