Health Care: A Moral Issue

It was horrible that the Democratic leaders of the U.S. Senate who mildly supported the public option, already embraced by the U.S. House, believed it was compelled to drop that part of their health care proposal because the Senate Republicans and renegade Democrats would not stomach it. Now, it's being said that the extension of Medicare to people between 55 and 64 years old is also dead in the water, so to speak, because some of the same individuals do not wish to swim in that direction.

What is the problem with expanding health care and reforming a failed and failing system in order to increase the number of citizens who have access to quality and affordable medical insurance and care? The spiraling costs of health care have been oppressive for decades, and our governmental leaders have failed to ensure that every person has reasonable opportunity to avail themselves of what is needed to sustain a physically robust lifestyle. I realize some administrations have tried, and some have worked valiantly to curtail the outrageous costs of medical care, health insurance, and prescription medication. With millions of people unable to afford basic care, and in the midst of an economic crisis the rebound from which has not significantly reached the masses of people, the denial of a fundamental existential need such as that which sustains basic health is simply unconscionable and immoral.

A health care bill that does not include a public option mocks real reform. A single-payer system, in my opinion, would be ideal. However, the ostensible compromise of a moderate expansion of Medicare down to those ten years younger than the current insurance allows also caricatures the recognition that our system is broken and excludes countless millions of people. Certainly, in the realm of negotiation, there must be some way that a Democratic Congress and a Democratic administration can compel those who arrogantly oppose real health reform to vote in favor of substantive change in favor of the consumer. Fear of filibusters and other tactics should not change the direction on the moral compass for those who staked their political careers on finally making constructive, innovative, and expansive health care reform the law of the land.

This is a fight that should not be relinquished. The Senate must find a way to get the numbers where they need to be without compromising out the very items that adequately cover the tens of millions who have been categorically locked out of access to quality, affordable care for many decades.

In the Woods: A Pro's Cons

Whether one is a fan of golf or not or indifferent, it is difficult not to know the name Tiger Woods. He is quite the sports icon, self-marketer, and money-maker. His talents as a professional golfer and athlete are legendary. Many people are celebrity hounds, so to speak, and love to absorb stories about famous people, regardless of their verisimilitude.

What is unfortunate about our hagiography, iconography, and overall fascination with the rich and famous is that we are setting ourselves up for a great fall. Of course, some of us like to see others fall for a variety of reasons. However, when we idolize people for their talents, looks, wealth, and so forth, we oftentimes forget they are human and prone to the same failings and shortcomings of us all. To avoid being devastated by the imperfections, eccentricities, and transgressions of people we adore, we should never ignore the fact that human beings are fallible, limited, and inconsistent and are always works in progress. Sometimes, progress is replaced by regression. We need to find a way to maintain a balance in our perceptions of others.

Another regrettable element in the involuntary exposure of Tiger Woods to such negative press is the lack of honesty in the face of embarrassment in what the very private man briefly, yet repeatedly, related to the media. By "honesty" is not meant that Woods had to make the incident an open book to the media. Rather, simply saying that he did not want to speak about the matter at that time would probably have sufficed. Instead, he elected to engage in some subterfuge, under the guise of his desire for privacy, which resulted in more scrutiny and inquiry than he would have had if clarity and sincerity of expression were employed.

Should Woods' personal idiosyncrasies that opened a window to his humanity cost him the endorsement deals that have helped him to accrue additional millions of dollars? Answering this question is a bit challenging, for the fact of the matter is that he capitalized on his untainted and wholesome public persona by landing and accepting compensation for the use of his name and image. When the name and image that he bartered and sold became soiled and sullied, did he forfeit the benefit of that capitalization? Maybe, and justifiably so. Although the final decision whether or not to continue his contract rests with the companies Woods endorsed, the whole situation should cause all of us to pause and reflect on the ways we are enablers of the I-Can-Do-No-Wrong mentality, of the unwarranted placing of people on pedestals, and of the malicious self-righteousness we harbor when others fail while cutting slack to ourselves when we regularly misstep.

Certainly, we will begin to see a new-and-improved Tiger Woods over the next couple of years. Even his golf game might dramatically improve--a feat that is hard to fathom, save for his recent faux pas. But before he once again ingratiates himself to his fans, let us recognize that the fault is ours to grant unto him an inhuman spot in our hearts. Neither he nor we deserve that!