Do we need to re-vamp the Health Care system in America?  Of course we do.  No one argues with that.  What we disagree on is who should re-vamp it and what it should look like once it’s re-vamped.  However, the last people who should be doing it are our elected officials.  What do they know about health care, insurance, medical problems, and prescription drugs?  Wouldn’t it make more sense to assemble a large, organized and focused group of doctors, nurses, insurance adjusters, insurance providers, and lay people from each of the various economic levels in our country?  

Those assembled would first determine what the “Larger Commitment” was that they were working on.  What did they want, bottom line, for every American?  Believe it or not, we all have an idea of what that should be.  And most of us, Republican, Democrat, Independent, or Other, want the same thing.  Our similarities will always outweigh our differences if we take the time to notice.

Once the “Larger Commitment” is established, similar, smaller groups could meet together so that each participating representative might express their insight, concerns, and suggestions for each of the areas of health care.  Then each group would bring the best of their brainstorming together to share with the larger group.  This may take a little longer than some want it to take, and it may be stressful within the groups as people work towards a common goal, but it could and should be done.  Then the bill should be put to the legislators to share with their constituents and find out if there is agreement among the majority of those they serve.  I could almost guarantee that following this, America would have the best health care system in the world.  Basic health care and wellness care would be available for all.  Extended services and additional options might only be available to those with employee benefits or those with more money, but like it or not, we do live in a free market society and people have what they can afford.  As Americans, we would be happier and more content if we quit complaining about the wealthy (FYI: I personally do not fit in that bracket) and begrudging them their wealth, and simply enjoyed what we do have, accepting this as “being fair.”

The second area in which elected officials  make decisions about things they know little about is education.  I think they feel that since they went to school they are qualified to determine how the education system should function.  That is like the Holiday Inn Express commercial in which the guest feels qualified to be a brain surgeon simply because he stayed at the hotel.

In Florida, the Legislature passed a bill requiring all seniors to successfully pass Algebra 2 and the accompanying End Of Course exam in order to graduate.  Why?  One representative suggested that if they had the thinking skills to pass Algebra 2, they could then be successful in life.  Really?

I’m just a Middle School / High School math teacher, but I think the Florida Legislature just wanted to look good to the rest of the country.  If they were really committed to having graduating seniors prepared to be successful in life, if they truly cared about helping them create a future to live in to, Algebra 2 would not even be on the table.  What every graduating senior in America needs, in my humble opinion, is an extensive course in Financial Literacy.  In this course, which is not yet developed they way it needs to be, the student would learn about the stock market, invest in a mock stock market throughout the school year, and have the opportunity to actually invest in the real stock market if they chose to.  They would learn how to buy a house, determine repairs needed before moving in, and figure the cost of those repairs.  They would learn about buying a car and have to work through the pressure of the sales pitch.  Students would have mock bank accounts and have to earn money, determined by their grades on their work.  They would have bills to pay and penalties for late payments.  AND, before the end of their senior year, each student would have a retirement plan in place and begin making contributions.  With the forecast of a depleted Social Security fund, what better way to prepare our students for the future than to prepare them to be responsible for, and invest in, their own future.

If elected officals could only but remember that they serve in a government office they aren’t the government.  We, the people are the government.  Elected officals are our servants.  They represent our needs, our desires, and our collective perspective.  If education needs reform, and most teachers agree that it does, get massive input from real teachers, most of whom already share a “Larger Committment,” not just someone who went to school.  And if you really want to reform health care, you should ask those who work in the healthcare network.

Walking out of a classroom into the hallway I was met by two female residents being escorted down the hallway.  The one looked at me, cocked her head to the side, and said, “What chu looking at?  You want a piece of me?”  I considered her question, shrugged my shoulders and replied, “I don’t know.  You got any good pieces?”  And I waited for her response.

The other girl started giggling and the girl herself began shaking her head.  “You’re crazy!” she answered; smiling.  Then she, the other girl, and their “Tech” continued down the hallway laughing.  (Situation diffused)

Was this quick-witted thinking or a learnable method?  What exactly did I do?  When I went back to my classroom, and because I think lifeskills are as important as any other subject matter, I asked my classroom full of 12-18 yr old incarcerated young men, “What did she mean by “do you want a piece of me?”  Without exception they told me she was calling me out; wanting a fight.  I asked several times if they were sure there could be no other meaning.  They were positive.

Then I asked them, “Do you think I fought with her, argued with her, yelled at her, or even felt threatened by her?”  Smiling, they all answered, “No.”  So, I said, “If I didn’t get called out then would you agree that I must have interpreted her question differently?”  Lights began to turn on inside their minds.  Just minutes before they could see no other possible meaning and now they had to admit that other meanings were not only possible, but in fact, must exist.

Now they had to know the rest of the story.  I shared my response, and they, as the girls in the hallway, couldn’t help but laugh.  Even they asked, “How did you do that?” 

I chose to respond to the actual question instead of reacting to what I thought she might mean, or experiences in my past, or my ego/pride.  In every situation, we have the opportunity to respond or react.  When we react we do the equivalent of kicking our foot forward after our reflexes are tapped.  We each have the power to choose our response in any given situation.

Would you have labeled this teenage girl a “difficult” person?  Was she being “difficult?”  Or was she just being a teenage girl trying to provoke an adult?  (Which, by the way, is the job of children – to test their limits)  How you choose to see her will influence whether or not you respond or react; but that’s another topic for another day.

Respond to the question, thought, situation, or comment – don’t react to perceived meanings, your past, or your ego/pride.  Have power & confidence – no matter what!

While Pete is still a young man of 15, his behavior is not so different from our own.  How often do we hear something and react to what we interpret it to mean rather than choosing to make the words mean something we can either ignore or respond to in a way that empowers us and leaves us happy?

Take the opportunity today to hear what you choose to hear – you’ll never be insulted again!

Ellen realized her mistake and apologized on her show, admitting that she messed up.  Unfortunately, Ellen then tried to get the adoption agency to absolve her of the guilt she felt for having Iggy taken from the children.  She pleaded and reasoned that the concern should be for the dog, (and possibly the children) not for the rules.  Ellen’s implication was that if Marina and the agency cared about Iggy, they would give him to the family Ellen selected.  Ellen said, “It should be about the dog.” 

What Ellen failed to recognize was that for Marina, it WAS all about the dog.  Why else would the agency have the new pet owners sign those contracts?  It’s clear that Marina and Vanessa Chekroun, owners of the adoption agency, love the dogs they adopt out.  If fact, they love them so much that they, through the contract, maintain some control over the dog’s life even after they are adopted.  Ellen DeGeneres’ saw Marina as cold-hearted, when in fact, she was doing exactly what Ellen wanted her to do:  making it about the dog! 

If Ellen could have set aside her emotions and guilt for a short time she might have seen Marina’s love and concern for Iggy even though that love was exhibited differently than Ellen wanted it exhibited.  Then she might have seen that her concern was as much for the children, who would now be without a dog, as it was for Iggy himself.  When Ellen saw this, the entire situation could have occured differently.  She could have accepted the entire responsibility, apologized to Marina for not seeing that the rules Marina enforces is her way of showing how much she loves the dog, and then apologized to the children for causing their heartache. 

Then Ellen could have made it right for the children by taking them out to find another dog to adopt.  They could have had a wonderful day together as they embarked on the adventure of finding a new friend. 

And Iggy, would soon be in a new home, approved by the agency, being loved and cared for.  Marina would have made sure of it.

If Marina, instead of seeing Ellen as an “unfit owner,” had seen Ellen’s giving Iggy to the children as her way of loving him, Marina might have met with Ellen, had a conversation about Iggy and how the rules apply and maybe agreed to “check out” the new home (or not).  Of course, if Marina did agree to check out the children’s home, Ellen would have to understand that if the home did not meet the agency’s standards, Iggy would have to be returned to the agency.    Marina could even have had Ellen go get the dog and explain it to the children.  Then there would be no “bad guys” and no “victims.”  It would be all about the dog, and integrity.

So who was being difficult?  Each of them became a difficult person to the other when they saw the other person’s actions as getting in the way of what they wanted, intended, or needed to have happen.  In reality, they both wanted the same thing:  Iggy in a home where he would be loved and cared for.  Unfortunately, that got lost in the emotion and the issue became about how that should happen, instead of that it should happen. 

Maybe if now they both realize that they actually, all along, wanted the same thing for Iggy, not only will Iggy soon be happy and move on, but Ellen and Marina will be too.