​Are you viewing God through the eyes of the serpent?
 
That was the chilling question raised by Chris Carrillo during our most recent Christian Music Hour at Care-age of Brookfield. To address it, he took us back to Genesis 3 and showed us exactly what the serpent did to seduce Eve, and therefore Adam, into doubting, denying and disobeying their Creator.
 
If you’d like to know how to identify Satan’s methods and protect yourself from becoming his next victim—or if you need a quick refresher course—please listen to this important message: 

Want to hear more from our favorite preacher? Visit our Messages from Chris Carrillo page for access to all his Care-age sermons since I finally figured out how to share them on this site.
 
If you’re reading this via email, please click on the title above to be taken to the audio file.

This past Memorial Day, our favorite preacher Chris Carrillo delivered a wonderfully warm message to the folks gathered at Care-age of Brookfield for the Christian Music Hour. In a sermon entitled “Jesus Our Friend,” Chris drew from King David’s experience with friendships in 1 Samuel 17-20—specifically, his friendships with Jonathan and with God Himself.
 
Jesus wants to be your friend, Chris pointed out. And He proved it by laying down His life for you. I hope you’ll take a few minutes to listen to what Chris had to say about this most critical subject.

“Now that,” Meg thought as she wended her way back to the Great Room, for once oblivious to the magnificent forest views flanking her almost every step of the way, “was a fantastic way to spend a Friday afternoon.”
 
She found Lucy standing atop one of the long tables they used for crafts, hanging Valentine’s Day decorations from hooks embedded in the ceiling’s coffered tiles.
 
“Don’t tell me you were with Sadie all afternoon.” Lucy was smiling, but not warmly. “I thought you’d be back in time to help bring folks home from bingo.”
 
“Sorry. We were just having such a great talk that I lost all track of time.”
 
“Well, it will please her daughter.” She stepped back to examine her handiwork. Satisfied, she eased herself down to the floor. “Sadie has long-term-care insurance, but Dana’s the one calling the shots on where it’s spent. I’ll email her about all the time you’re spending with her mother. She’ll like that.”
 
“What I can’t figure out,” Meg said, “is why she wouldn’t kill to spend time with Sadie. She’s fascinating!”
 
“It’s tough to understand, all right. But maybe Dana’s one of those ‘forever young’ kids—doesn’t have a clue that she’ll be in the same position one day herself, if she lives long enough. Or maybe she knows and doesn’t want the reminder.”
 
Lucy gathered up her leftover decorations and tossed them in a plastic tub. “But like I said, even though she’s one of the worst I’ve seen, it happens all the time. You’ll never see a busier bunch than the kids of parents in nursing homes.”
 
--From The Song of Sadie Sparrow, page 75

Today’s culture of death keeps coming up with new ways to kill us off—whenever possible, making it sound like the noblest idea ever.
 
Here’s the latest: Euthanizing people who are very much alive by knocking them out and surgically removing whatever vital organs you have need of – hearts or livers, for instance.
 
It’s already happening in Canada. And the idea has long been discussed behind closed doors here in the U.S. But suddenly it’s being exposed to the light of day.

​USA Today recently carried an op-ed by pulmonary and critical care physician E. Wesley Ely, according to a piece in World magazine. “How should society respond to the increasingly long list of people waiting for organs on a transplant list?” he asks. “You’ve no doubt heard of ‘black market’ organs in foreign countries, but are there other options that should be off the table?”
 
Death by organ donation would certainly seem to qualify as one of those verboten options, he concludes. Yet just the opposite is happening, Dr. Ely reports. “The idea of carrying out euthanasia by placing donors under general anesthesia and then surgically removing their vital organs while they are still alive is gaining frightening traction.”
 
So what do they put on the death certificate, do you suppose? "Cause of death: Organ removal"?
 
I suppose so. As I wrote a few years ago when I first got wind of this horrifying practice, “Leave it to modern scientists to use five words when one is perfectly sufficient.”

​That word would, of course, be "murder." 

You can learn a lot about life from nursing-home residents--even the fictional ones. Consider elderly Gladys Baldwin's warning in chapter 55 of The Song of Sadie Sparrow:  

You’d have to be part ostrich to be unconcerned about America’s safety net for the very elderly. If you don’t count yourselves among that oblivious group, consider just a few of the U.S. Census Bureau’s projections.
 
This, for example: Today, roughly 15 % of Americans, about 49.2 million, are over the age of 65. By 2060, that number is expected to climb to 23%, and to describe 94.7 million Americans.
 
Imagine that. Nearly one in four citizens tapping into the Social Security “fund” they’ve been paying into their entire working lives. (Apparently there really is no fund; our politicians have been spending every cent the moment it comes in. But let’s pretend.) Nearly one in four citizens signing up for Medicare. And a big chunk of this population requiring skilled-nursing care of the sort offered today by America’s nursing homes.
 
One in four. And the under-65 crowd will have to support them. If literally everyone is working by then, that would mean three workers supporting not only their own families and futures, but also providing substantial support to every elderly person. And not every American works at a paying job. What will the ratios be by 2060? Two workers per elderly person? Or perhaps just one?
 
My primary concern is the nursing-home population—those who cannot possibly fend for themselves. This will include many of you who are now in your 40s and 50s. What will happen to you when the money runs out?
 
Young families taking granny in is largely a thing of the past. Oh, it still happens now and then. But in the first place, this assumes old folks who had children; and if declining birth rates in the western world are any indication, it seems that “living with the kids” is destined to become less and less of an option for the aging.  It also assumes children willing and able to take care of their parents at home, whatever disabilities might be involved. Good luck on that score.
 
So what’s the solution?
 
We’re already seeing some gasp-worthy possibilities unfolding in Europe.

There’s the old “send ‘em to cheaper regions” ploy. Over the last decade, ​Germany has already begun making a name for itself in this area. Eastern European destinations are not so bad, since a child could perhaps jump on a train to visit mom or dad over a long weekend. More concerning are the homes in regions like southeast Asia; visiting an institutionalized parent in a country like Thailand would require plenty of vacation time and ready cash, and it would be almost impossible for a child to monitor the quality of care being provided day in, day out.
 
And then there are those pioneers in The Netherlands. First it was assisted suicide. And now? Euthanasia, of course! The thinking seems to go something like this: We put our pets to sleep when they’re suffering, or sometimes even when they become too messy for our pristine homes. So why not the elderly?
 
And isn’t this romantic? In Holland, you can now be euthanized with your partner. As a recent report put it, “Joint suicides by elderly couples used to be considered a tragedy. In the Netherlands, doctors killing elderly couples together is considered a medical treatment.”
 
I have no idea what the solution might be to this impending eldercare crisis. It might even be too late to do anything about it. But it does seem like we should be talking about it, at least as fervently as we do the question of climate change.
 
Fortunately, nothing in this world is forever. This life is just a blink of an eye. And for those who’ve repented and trusted in Jesus Christ, there’s a joyful eternity to look forward to, with no worries, no tears, no distress of any kind.

​If you’d like to join that happy throng, I hope you’ll begin seeking your Creator today. Here’s a good place to begin. 

In this day of 24x7 news coverage, why are we so ill-informed about the things that matter? In particular, why are we clueless about the consequences of governmental policies that affect the most vulnerable Americans?
 
Consider, for example, all the recent talk about “Medicare for all.” Sounds great, doesn’t it? So what if so-and-so said that Medicare is headed for bankruptcy just a few years down the road? The government can just print more money, right? Modern Monetary Theory says that'll work just fine.
 
After all, if our most revered politicians aren’t worried about it, why should we be?
 
Here’s the short answer: Because there are unintended consequences to every policy the government implements. And each one can have a devastating impact on certain groups of people.
 
We’re about to see another example here in southeastern Wisconsin, as Linden Grove Communities prepares to shut down three of its four long-term-care facilities. The reason, according to a report in Skilled Nursing News? Annual losses of $5 to $7 million in Medicaid reimbursements, exacerbated by Obama-era reimbursement changes.  
 
“Though the shortfalls have been occurring for years,” SNN reports, “the stress accelerated in 2016 with the implementation of the Comprehensive Care for Joint Replacement Model (CJR), which shifted reimbursements for common hip and knee replacements to a bundled payment model that the hospital, doctors, and post-acute providers must share.”
 
Bottom line: In a drive to save money, the feds made some changes that will soon shutter these three facilities that, together, have been home to scores of elderly Americans. (The head count is unclear, but a check of Medicare's nursing-home rating site indicates that Linden Grove’s closures will mean a loss of 263 certified beds here in Waukesha County.)
 
How many more residents have already been, or will soon be, rendered at least temporarily homeless by this scheme?
 
Beats me. But the above-cited report also reveals that Wisconsin nursing-home providers typically lose an average of $71 to $79 a day on each Medicaid patient. In fact, Linden Grove’s residents are just the latest victims of Medicaid shortfalls; in Wisconsin, more than 30 other skilled-nursing facilities have closed their doors for the same reason, 10 of them in 2019 alone.
 
Makes you wonder what else our bureaucrats have up their sleeves. If "Medicare for all" becomes a reality, will even more elderly people pay the price?  
 
Wouldn't you think that some enterprising journalists would investigate the unintended consequences of such policies and help us become more informed voters? Granted, it’s complicated stuff, but I guarantee that there are still some supply-side economists around who could have predicted this particular outcome. And maybe they would care to comment on some of the other issues being so hotly debated today—issues that will impact how we care for our most defenseless populations in the years to come.
 
Is that expecting too much of modern journalists? Could be. And it’s further complicated by the fact that each state comes up with its own Medicaid reimbursements rules.
 
Still, if we’re concerned about who’s going to be taking care of Great Grandma in her twilight years—indeed, who’s going to be taking care of us down the road—we’d best start paying attention today. And we’d best vote for candidates who appear to have both a grasp of real-world economics and a concern for the elderly.