The Problem with the current health care Debate:

For the past few months, we have been embroiled in a pretty contentious debate about health care in this country. We have been forced to address some really tough questions like, "Is affordable health care a right or a privilege?", "...if it is a right, how should it be provided to all those eligible for coverage?" The summer town hall meetings hosted by our elected officials brought out some very heated and contentious discussions, with passions running very high on both sides of the political aisle. On one side of the equation, you have the liberal point view, mandating some type of universal health care for all American citizens, preferably through a medicare type "single payer" system offered as a government option for all those who need it; on the conservative side of the aisle, however, are those that feel we have been Taxed Enough Already (T.E.A) and have been hosties nationwide "T.E.A parties" to protest what they feel is too much government involvement in our lives. There is a lot of anger in this regard especially considering that we are yet to see real results on the ground from the government bailout of the huge financial corporations, something that was done to supposedly prevent another great depression. The conservative movement feels that the best way to provide health care is let the free market do its thing and let open competition amongst health care providers take its course.

I think both sides of the political debate make very valid points, but personally, I don't think that any bill that congress passes, if any passes at all, will really address the real issue, the pink elephant in the room that no one wants to talk about; When you have a system where our health care is provided primarily by "for profit" health insurance companies, you will NEVER have a system where you can fundamentally address this issue of coverage for all. Why? Because these insurance companies are not primarily in the business of paying out medical claims to all that are sick, if they did that, they would go out of business. They're in business to make money, and you don't make money by providing health insurance for everyone. Yes, they would have a short term gain in profits if the government decided to buy policies for the millions who are currently uninsured, but what happens when these people need to have huge medical bills for very expensive procedures and pre-existing conditions paid off? Claims will start to be denied. There is a reason why health insurance companies prefer to provide coverage for healthier people; it prevents them from having to pay out on huge claims. They are beholden to their shareholders to make a profit.

I know people who have health insurance coverage and are still tens of thousands of dollars in debt because of huge deductibles on certain procedures (especially pre-existing conditions) or simple lack of coverage for those expenses. This is one of the reasons why medical bills is one of the leading causes of bankruptcy in this nation.

So the real question should be, "does every industry have to be a "for profit" industry when we have millions of people who are going into the red financially because of unpaid medical costs?" In the richest nation on the planet, where the top 1% own more wealth than the bottom 90% combined, is it unrealistic to believe that some kind of health care coverage for all will eventually pay for itself in productivity in the market? Why are we the only developed country in the world where there is not some kind of basic comprehensive universal health care for all who need it? I have lived in one of those so-called socialist nation's, (France), and don't believe all the stuff you see on TV, our news is highly politicized and opinionated and not all that you see on TV is based on all the facts, most of it is rooted in fear and propaganda to further a political cause.

Yes, we all should have a proactive stake in our own health, by eating healthy foods, exercising regulrly, and getting regular checkups, but God-forbid you find out that you have a terminal condition (like the woman being referred to in the question in the town hall meeting in the first video clip below) what do you do next? Or what if you just happen to have a pre-existing condition that you were born with that requires a lifetime of care? And this does not even cover issues like mental health and addiction, for which many people have to come out of pocket to get the best treatment because insurance companies won't cover the enormously huge costs of rehab. Not everyone has $30,000 or more disposable dollars to get that kind of treatment like celebrities do ...

If the spiritual fervor of a nation is based on how we treat the "least of these" in our society, then we have some tough questions to ask ourselves. Because there is no reason why people should be dying or going boke because of treatable diseases simply because they cannot afford health care in the richest and most prosperous nation on earth.

The first video below is an Op-Ed piece that addresses this very issue. The gist of what I wanted from there starts around the 1.40 mark of the video were he plays video from the town hall meeting where a lady asks a question about a family member of hers that recently lost her job and now has a tumor. The second video one is just a great "fun" video of this baby dancing to Beyonce's "single ladies". I thought it was so cute...lol

Have a wonderful weekend my friends!!

Stephen Oladotun Akinduro

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

HOW GOOD IS GOOD ENOUGH?

How good is good enough for God? How moral does one have to be to be acceptable to God and continue to receive His blessings? I ask this question because when you start talking about God’s grace, inevitably someone will bring up the fact that they feel that if you focus too much on God’s grace, you are giving people the license to sin or do as they please without fear of consequence, the ultimate being hell. But then this brings up an interesting question. Because if we all say that we agree that no one is perfect, and if we claim that even being “saved” or “born again” does not mean that we will not still have areas in our lives where we struggle, then the question remains, “how good is good enough?" I got into an online debate about this this past weekend with someone who said that for us to remain “acceptable to God” even after we “give our lives to Christ” we have to live holy lives. And while I agree that our desires change once we come to God and receive Jesus’ by faith, I often wonder, how holy is holy enough for God? How many impure thoughts does it take to disqualify us from God’s love? How many good deeds must be done to nullify any bad deeds or thoughts we have had in the past? How many improper deeds does it take to disqualify us from God's love? What if, unbeknownst to me, I do something wrong bad, or thought of something improper and have not confessed it before I die even though I am “saved”? Does that send me straight to hell?

I remember when I became a Christian in my mid-teens, and started voraciously reading the Bible, arrogantly thinking that I could actually accomplish the task of obeying every word that I read, I was shocked to realize that certain things that I had taken for granted were sins: doing the right thing with the wrong motive is just as bad as doing the wrong thing (Prov. 16:2), hatred and bitterness is the equivalent of murder in Gods eyes (1 John 3:15), lust is as bad as the actual physical act of adultery or fornication (Matthew 5:27-30), breaking just one rule in the Bible makes you as guilt as the compulsive sinner who has broken them all (James 2:10). What am I getting at? If your primary objective is to obey all the rules in the Bible, good luck, but I can assure you that you will drive yourself to near insanity, because unless you deceive yourself and cherry-pick the rules that fit your agenda or ideology, you are in for a very bumpy ride.
Think of all the differences that exist in the world of “Christendom” based on denominational differences. Some denominations believe there are two baptisms that are necessary, one the “water” baptism the other for the holy spirit, others believe in only one baptism (water) because they believe we receive the Holy Spirit automatically when we get saved; and when it comes to baptism, some denominations think it is near heresy if you are not immersed in the water, others think that sprinkling is okay; some denominations that speaking in tongues is the primary indicator of whether you have the holy spirit, others do not; some denominations believe that all alcohol must be prohibited, others believe Jesus drank real wine, albeit less potent, and so alcohol is okay in moderation; some denominations frown on all things secular, including the music, others believe you can use such media to deliver a spiritual message; some denominations frown on drinking anything with caffeine, including coffee, because it is technically a drug, others say such drinks are okay; some denominations say tithing should not be mandatory, because we are no longer “under the law", others say tithing is mandatory because it was done even before Moses went to Mt. Sinai. Do you see where I am going with this? Even in Christian circles, we can’t agree on which laws are the most important, because everyone cherry-picks from the Bible. Put ten theologians in a room and I am sure you will come up with significant differences in their theology.

The bottom line is that regardless of your philosophical or spiritual views, if keeping the law could have made us righteous-enough to be acceptable to God, then Jesus’ mission would have been meaningless. The more we accept this fact, the less we would look at each other through self-righteous lenses and more though the prism of love, because ultimately, that is what being a child of God is supposed to be about, seeing each other through the prisms of love and grace. Ultimately it is the lack of this kind of love that leaves many people disillusioned with organized religion.

“I do not treat the grace of God as meaningless. For if keeping the law could make us right with God, then there was no need for Christ to die.” Gal. 2:21


Stephen O. Akinduro

DOES TIME HEAL ALL WOUNDS?

Majority of us have heard the expression, "time heals all wounds". But is this really true? Usually, when this statement is used, it is referring to some kind of misfortune or painful situation that a person has gone through, and the implication is that the emotional pain from the situation ceases with the passage of time. Nothing could be further from the truth. We know how ludicrous it would sound to tell a person with a serious physical ailment not to get treatment, so why do we think that the same does not apply when it comes to healing of emotional wounds?
If there is anything that I have learned from in my brief existence in life so far, it is that we all have a story to tell. Regardless of socio-economic status, everyone has a story to tell; everyone can recall some experience or hurt that is often kept hidden under a well crafted façade. Many times while I am at church, I find myself wondering what the story of the person sitting right next to me is. What sparked their spiritual journey? While the human soul and mind has tremendous capacity for resilience, it is also very fragile. Many of us are part of the walking wounded, carrying around with us issues and deep hurts that have never fully healed. It could have been the death of a loved one; betrayal by a family member or close friend; a bitter and contentious divorce; the loss of a job; a traumatic accident or event; physical or mental abuse...the list could go on and on. Whatever it is, however, if it is not dealt with appropriately, there can be negative effects on the quality of one's life later on. Inevitably, time on its own heals nothing. And if we take our issues and neatly sweep them under the rug, they will eventually surface again one way or another if not appropriately dealt with. The tribulations of life can teach us a lot, but they must be dealt with in order to live a fruitful life in the future. If we choose to hold on to the mantle of bitterness and disillusionment that often comes with these events, we may find ourselves crumbling in a prison of our own creation down the road.

I think that we men are often more guilt of “holding things in” than ladies are. As a man, I have often held on to the misguided clichés about a man being able to take everything in life in stride. You’ve heard the clichés rooted in male pride – real men don’t cry; real men have thick skin, real men are problem solvers, not whiners etc – and it has been a humbling experience for me to find myself in those situations where I had to swallow my pride and realize that I was stuck and needed help. For years, I thought that if I simply ignored the grief and sadness that I felt after my mother’s suicide when I was young, everything would be alright. So I ignored it, did not talk about it for decades, and even tried to convince myself that it did not really happen. After all, it was in the past, and what has happened has happened, and there is nothing we can do about it, so why fret over the past? But grieving and/or dealing with one’s pain is not a matter of dwelling on the past, it is simply a matter of being totally honest with oneself about one’s own emotional pain and vulnerability and not holding that pain inside. I don’t think that it is a coincidence that “hurting people often hurt other people”; people who have been abused and do not deal with the pain from that abuse tend to be perpetrators of that same abuse later on in life. R & B star Chris Brown has been honest in the past about how he witnessed domestic abuse growing up; so how ironic that even though he wanted to break that cycle of violence, he would find himself the perpetrator of that same kind of abuse against his ex-girlfriend Rihanna? Now, under court supervision and probation, he is forced to confront his issues with the help of counseling and other support systems. I wish him well and hope that he and Rihanna find the healing that they need.

“Time heals all wounds” is a very dangerous and erroneous cliché. Let us not buy into lies like these which imply that we can just “get over it” without help and support. My sense of compassion for others has come from being broken by my own tribulations and yet having received the love and compassion from others, strength that I needed to go on and pay it forward.

Stephen Oladotun Akinduro