Health care reform. That’s what this article is about. If you feel you possess too much of a bias on this issue then I implore you, please read no further. If you feel it is intellectually possible for you to maintain an open mind for the next minute or so while you read this piece, then please consider what is below.
As our nation stands at the verge of enacting arguably the most extensive piece of legislation of all time, it is important to take into account just how comprehensive this bill is. This matter of epic proportions demands thorough consideration by all of us, and not just a mere analysis of ideological implications followed by an impulsive, uninformed decision.
Health care reform stopped being exclusively an economic and political topic a while ago. Whether it happened by accident or not, much of the recent debate involving this bill has revolved around morality and social justice. Instead of purely basing critiques of the bill on specific motives for improving our health care system, broad generalizations are being made regarding what would be “fair” for everyone.
This is not to downplay the concept of morality in any way. But when debating the pros and cons of legislation, discussing morality is dangerous in the sense that emotions start to overshadow evidence-based reasoning. If emotions were the cornerstone of politics, policy-making would exist as a vicious circle where the ambiguity of “fairness” would quell any possibility of productive debate.
Yet the appeal to public sentiment is a reality for the case of this health care bill. A few weeks ago, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi allowed pro-life Democrats to tighten restrictions on coverage of abortions under the plan in order to gain more support. Defining where you stand regarding abortion is a process completely based on personal perceptions of right and wrong.
In an address to a joint session of Congress Sept. 9, President Obama put health care reform in perspective as the legacy of the recently deceased senator Ted Kennedy. Kennedy had characterized this reform as the “unfinished business of our society.” Obama reflected on this statement by commenting that such an attitude epitomizes the “character of our country.” While it is true Kennedy was an advocate for such reform, Obama’s act of taking his quotes out of context was nothing more than a method of playing on the emotions of the audience.
Reform has also been presented as a way to combat the “evils” of the profit-hungry health care and health insurance companies. Even though capitalism has been the bedrock of our nation since its founding by establishing a well-oiled economic machine that supports the majority of American jobs, government officials portray it as a corrupt sector of society that taints America’s reputation. How ironic.
In furthering the debate, officials also cite spotty statistics about “the poor” or “the unfortunate” who apparently cannot find a way to afford health insurance.? Generalizations about discrimination against non-white ethnicities are repeatedly brought up so as to ingrain in the mind of the audience that the America of today is no different than that of before the 1950s. Framing the support of the bill in this way is an attempt to make the opposition look like racists and bigots who have no compassion for others.
As political advocates try to psychologically prime the audience, the exact statements comprised in the bill get lost in translation. An interpretation of what is specifically in the bill is called for instead of a broad generalization about what the bill addresses.
In addition, emotionally charged issues should be peripheral aspects when discussing the enacting of the bill. Once supporters stop smooth talking their way through this reform, then the public will be able to actually make an informed decision regarding this topic. If supporters brought rationale to the discussion, it would truly make for a “fair” debate.
?
Aaron Linskens ([email protected]) is a sophomore majoring in English and journalism.
