Pastor Vernon C. Lyons
From: Charles Lyons <Charles.Lyons@armitagechurch.org>
Date: March 10, 2018 at 10:58:44 AM CST
To: THOMAS LYONS <thoslyons@att.ne
Tom in your response to Danny you referenced Dad’s greed, pride, deceit and unfaithfulness (selfishness). Could you share with me the evidences you see of each of those things? Thanks. And do you see relationship between us without or in spite of, or alongside this issue? Thanks again. charles
March 18, 2018—GREED Dear Charles, I think answering your question regarding the evidence for greed, deceit, pride and unfaithfulness in Dad’s actions and inaction related to mom’s care, will have to be done one at a time. So in this letter I will only address the sin of greed. Greed, although a hidden sin of the heart, is inevitably exposed by the words and choices of the one who allows greed to go unchecked. In a number of biblical passages greed is simply referred to as “the love of money.” As such, it’s easy to see when greed is actively manifested, because the love of money, like love of anything or anyone else, will show up in what someone says and does. You talk about what you love and you protect what you love. Dad’s heart of greed is evident in what he talks about and in many of the decisions he makes. But as a case in point, most recently, when I asked how his Mexico trip was, he told me (as usual) how much he saved on dentistry, medication, and the general living expenses. This was done with great detail and to the exclusion of everything else. Then conversely, one of his favorite things to obsess about is medical expenses. Mom was not home even a week before he was talking about the bills that were arrIving. And that was the main topic I heard him discuss in the weeks following her death. His talk showed he was more attached to money. However, the most telling thing in Dad’s case, is when both his wife and his money were in danger of being lost, he acted in a way that protected his money while increasing the risk of losing his wife. Now since these medical care decisions were made in the context of self-insurance, I would like to backtrack a bit to take a closer look at that whole issue. From what I understand, for years Dad has consistently received money from Ashburn in addition to his salary that was specifically designated for a health insurance of his choice. And as he declared when questioned in a church business meeting the night before Mom fell and broke her leg, “I have no health insurance.” His choice was to self-insure. By accepting this money that was designated for health insurance, in practical and perhaps legal terms, he became the insurance company for Mom. This choice made him Mom’s fiduciary or trustee for her health care. As such, he would decide what medical care would be “covered,” or not. So, with the real life example of Mom’s post operative rehabilitation needs, let’s do a role reversal to bring some clarity to what was actually said and done. What would Dad say, if, after years of faithfully paying monthly premiums to XYZ Insurance Co., they say to him: “Surely, you should be able to provide ‘better care’ for your wife at home. We know you have family and friends who are health care professionals or at least have some experience, who could step up to help. And, isn’t it true you have a lifetime of knowledge and experience from being around the sick and elderly? You wouldn’t expect us to continue funding what you could handle yourself at home? We are still willing to cover costs for a care giver for 5 hours a day and any basic medical and care giving supplies. Additional coverage, would be considered based on the patient’s potential quality of life and will to live.” Yes, that would be absurd. But that is what VCL Insurance actually did. How can what he did be defended or justified, to say nothing of the affirmation and commendation which I have heard? Furthermore, had he been paying premiums faithfully for years to XYZ Insurance Co. you can be sure he would have gotten every penny’s worth of coverage out of that company. Very simply, Mom would have been kept in rehab and received every other needed care to the fullest extent of coverage and then some, as he would have probably pushed for more. Was his choice to “self insure” about love for Mom or money? Would it provide “better care” or better profit? If better care for his wife was the motivation, then it would have been proved in the care he procured for her when the need arose. “Money is not an issue” would prove itself by finding the best options for the wife you love more than money. The opposite is what was done and I’ll give only one crucial example. When mom needed a pro-time machine ...yesterday!!!... for monitoring her blood, he waited a fateful 5 more days to use one at no charge. There were other options given, but they would have cost money. This was greed, not “better care!” Actions tell the truth. If the mouth says differently it is lying; not the other way around. Although he often points out the failings of those who practice medicine, by his actions and what was said, in every way, Dad was affirming the value and worth of medical professionals. First by calling 911 when mom fell. Then by proceeding with recommended surgery and rehab. But even when leaving all of these professionals behind, he was looking to, and boasting about, the medical professionals that volunteered to help. (more on this when we cover deceit) So, what was the difference between the professionals at Lexington and the professionals at home? ...COST!!! ...GREED! Since Dad testified to the deacons that concern for money had nothing to do with the decisions made for Mom’s care, it begs the question, what was the motivation? ...for bringing Mom home? ...for not relating to a doctor? ...for not arranging to have a nurse? ...for not pursuing hospice care? What WAS the reason?!!! The silence, (and the words) the actions and inactions and the history of frugality and negligence all point to one thing. Money!! To say that money had nothing to do with the decisions made, is like saying that Dad had nothing to do with these decisions. Secondarily, you can’t back him up in his “right to choose” when he had already chosen to be personally responsible to act in the best interest of his wife in the stead of an insurance company. That means he must provide at least what standard health insurance would provide. Yet he said he would do better! He did neither! He covered less and the “better care” at home was worse! Given the intent and purpose of the church’s health insurance allotment that he willfully accepted, Dad’s cutting off care from all paid professionals for his wife just 2 weeks into an expected 3 month rehab program, was at least unethical but possibly could be charged as a failure to perform his fiduciary duty. But surely the actions taken and not, reveal among other things a motivation of a love of money; simply put, greed. "For him that has this worlds goods and shuts up the bowels of compassion, how dwells the love of God in him?" To change my assessment of the facts in order to keep Dad’s integrity in tact would jeopardize my own. Much to my dismay and grief, Charles, to this point, your responses cause me to question your integrity as well. I pray that you come into the light before it’s too late. You can’t help someone out of the darkness by agreeing with them. That pulls you into the darkness. And you can’t turn darkness into light by redefining what light is. “If therefore the light that is in you is darkness, how great is the darkness!” loving you enough to confront, Tom link to: 9b- Dad’s Deceit