There is nothing wrong with possessing a winning attitude in us. A winning attitude is the core component of a free and capitalistic society. It creates competition, generates growth, and improves the standard of living of society. A winner in a product and the marketplace is rewarded with profits for the company and wealth for the stockholder. In sports a winner or winning team is recognized for their achievement and rewarded monetarily, and the fans of the winning team are rewarded with the individual psychological needs. The purpose of the competition is to promote dedication, excellence, risk taking, continuous improvement, and benefits everyone in the society. This year’s Super Bowl was a good example of competition. Both teams worked hard to win the game and made it entertaining for everyone who watched the game. After the game the New Orleans quarterback stood in front of TV cameras with his son in his arms; whether you were an Indiana or New Orleans fan, you knew that wining is not just for a trophy or about a symbol of the team, it is about people. That’s one reason our forefathers who wrote the constitution, and laid the foundation of the political infrastructure for serving the country created the legislative, executive, and judiciary branches. Most probably they believed that separating and laying a competitive political infrastructure would best serve people of our country. In the current political environment, the meaning of competition is to win at any cost, and the victory belongs to the party. This approach has divided the country and the country is not benefiting by this political strategy. The Congressmen and Congresswomen, and Senators are not just serving their constituents (communities), they are elected to serve the nation, that’s why they have the title of US in front of their title (Congressmen, Congresswomen, and Senator). Their decisions should be based on the best interest of the nation and not based on the interest of their party’s competitive position. An important political decision is on the desk of Congress, the healthcare reforms; fifty-two days after the New Year, there is still a stalemate in Washington. There is a bipartisan healthcare reform meeting scheduled later this week by the White House, the nation will be watching a live broadcast of the politicians at work. The actions of the politicians will tell us whether they are working to win for the country or win for the party of their affiliation.
Bloger@sunlona.com
We have lost a person who loved his country and cared about its people. He was carrying the torch that was lit by his elder brothers President John Kennedy and Senator Robert Kennedy to serve the people. Ted Kennedy was a statesman, politician, legislator, and senator. As a statesman, he showed the world that he was one of a kind – The Kennedy. He was rich and famous, and could have lived a luxurious life, but choose to serve the people. As a politician, he was not afraid to take risks by supporting issues that he strongly believed were in the best interest of the people. He was a leader, fighter, and a negotiator. As a legislator, his record of 46 years shows he was an affective legislator and that his legislative work has changed the lives of millions of Americans. It is a great loss for both the country and Kennedy family.
bloger@sunlona.com
Health care should be available to everyone in the nation irrelevant of income, age, sex, race, religion, and affiliation. Importance of health and welfare of the society is the concern of all the faiths around the world. If you look at the history of health care services you will find that several faith-based institutions and not-for-profit institutions once operate healthcare facilities. These organizations were started based on the strong belief that health care was a necessity for the welfare of the society. Health care is a necessity like any other necessity such as water, electricity, and other utilities. In the past utilities were operated and or regulated by the government and provided the access to everyone in the community irrelevant of demographic differences, and affiliation. Some communities still operate and or regulate utility services. There were no national debates or complaints about the government involvement because everyone has access to the service and the rates were the same for everyone in the community.
The question is why is there an opposition to the health care reform and government involvement in the health care. The answer is the perception of the healthcare service has changed over the decades. The health care as a necessity has turned into a commodity. We as a nation believed that health care is a necessity for seniors, and the Medicare program was created to provide the health care service to elderly people. A necessary commodity fulfills necessity. The necessary commodity should be provided to the community at an affordable price to maintain the health and welfare of the nation. On the other hand, a commodity is a product or service sold at the market place at the market price. A market is a place where goods and services are exchanged for cash. There is nothing wrong for a commodity to be sold at the market place. The market will determine the price based on demand and supply of the commodity. Everyone one of us has had experience with a commodity such as gasoline in the last few years. When the price of gasoline increased, everyone in the nation was affected by the gasoline price and people had to make choices such as commute, postpone vacations, ride a bicycle, etc. If you are ill (sick), you need access to healthcare service right then and there, and you can’t postpone treatment of illness like your vacation. That’s why health care is a necessity and healthcare service is a necessary commodity and everyone in the nation must have access to the health care services. We have other necessity commodities such as national security and defense, which is 23% of the budget that is paid by the taxpayers. Why are we having a debate about who is going to get what and who is paying for it? The reason is we as a society consider health care as a general commodity as any other commodity such as an automobile. Now we are afraid that there will be no distinction between Cadillac of health services and Hyundai of health services. An hourly rate worker will have access to the same health care services as a CEO of a billion dollar company. The fear of losing the perception of the commodity may be the reason for the opposition to healthcare reforms. We need to understand that healthcare reform will improve the health of the nation and in turn will improve the nation’s productivity and efficiency. The people who are going to benefit more from the productivity is the people with higher income who are concerned about whose taxes will be used to provide the healthcare to needy Americans.
Bloger@Sunlona.com
