As a college student engrossed in my studies, I often feel as though I am caught in a protective bubble which disconnects me from the events that occur outside of my academic realm. However, the controversies and debates surrounding the passage of the new health care bill have recently burst this bubble and have caused me to take a few moments to reflect about the outside world.
I am ashamed to admit that before the last few weeks my knowledge of this national debate has been very limited and, still I believe, inadequate. But due to the recent rhetoric and buzz words which have been thrown around, I have begun to listen and do research on the topic.
In my research, I have observed a constant, frenetic circus surrounding the entire debate on both sides. From posters, to political pep rallies, to the recent use of incendiary rhetoric, I have realized that the majority of the talking is just noise containing little evidence of fact, substance, or logic. Those in opposition to the health care bill appear to claim that the bill will lead to an apocalyptic massacre of babies and the utter and total extinction of our rights and freedoms as Americans. When claims such as these are thrown around, I believe it is necessary to take a step back, remove the tea kettle from the flames, and think about the reality of the situation before the water boils over.
My first thoughts went to the socialization of the health care system. I am a business student and therefore I am also a supporter of a free market system. I believe that privatized health care would probably be more efficient than a large national health care system, because traditionally large government institutions tend to be inefficient and cumbersome. However, in my research, I found that the health care bill does not eliminate private health care, but opens up new opportunities for those who cannot afford private health care. Yes, people will be required by penalty of a fine to have health care insurance by 2014; but they will not be required to accept the government health care. This doctrine felt familiar to me, where had I heard it previously?
After some thought, I had an answer to my question. Public health care is like public education. All children in the United States are required by law to have a certain amount of education. In this country, parents or guardians can choose to send their children to either the government funded public schools, or they can elect to pay tuition and send their children to a more expensive private school. Naturally, not everyone can afford to send their children to private school; therefore, they have to option for public. The public health care system which will be installed seems to enact the same principle.
Personally, I have had a private school education my entire life, yet my parents still pay taxes to support public schools as every other tax-paying American has done. Therefore, your “free” public schooling is not really “free” at all. The same would hold true for health care. Basic economics teaches that there is no such thing as a free lunch. Someone always has to pay. Conservatives may not like the fact that taxes may increase in order to support the new system, although I hear that taxes will not be used to fund health care. But think of it this way: at least all people will have to pay some form of a premium, rather than hospitals and tax payers having to eat the entire cost of uninsured patients who are given treatment.
Therefore, insinuating that even now tax-payers do not pay for health care is false; and in reality, it is not a strong basis for which to form an oppositional argument, because the bill does not call for an increase in taxes to fund the new system.
Additionally, the hyperbolic speeches and fear tactics used by conservatives primarily hurt their cause rather than aide it. Although I have always been a moderate, prior to the 2008 election I felt as though my political ideologies aligned more closely with conservatives than liberals. But now the illogical, unfounded, and radical claims asserted by the conservative party have turned me away from their cause. For example, the outburst of “baby killer” claiming that the health care bill supports abortions is completely false. In fact, I personally searched the 1,018 page bill for the offending clause which would support abortion. Nowhere in contents does the bill even mention abortions or birth control. Where the conservatives got this idea, I haven’t a clue. It would appear as though this thought was thrown into the fire to fuel the flames of hysteria of the already agitated masses.
Furthermore, for a party who claims to be in touch with the common man via the usage plain speech, I have been hearing a plethora of complicated metaphors pertaining to the resistance to this bill. These metaphors show violent imagery employing words and phrases such as “kill” and “take out.” Although these metaphors are blatantly figurative to the Congressmen who use them, their followers appear to be taking the metaphors quite literally.
Therefore, I would like to implore the conservative members of Congress to take care of how they address their displeasure. I think it is good that they wish to challenge and argue the bill. Our country’s constitution is beautiful because it allows citizens to voice their opinions and challenge the government. Since this is allowed in our country, I feel there is no need for violent protest and salacious claims. I believe oppositional protest should elevate the conversation rather than degrade it. If they want change, then work positively to engender it. By all means, petition the Supreme Court to decide on the constitutionality of the bill. Defend your position by logic and law rather than by fear. If conservatives follow this advice, they will find they have a stronger and more stable base from which they can launch their campaign, and they will win the future support of those who are turned off by their fantastic allegations which have been found to be mostly false or exaggerated.
I cannot say for certain whether or not this new government-run health care program will be for the betterment of the nation, but I am extremely interested to see how the events of the next few years unfold. What I do know is that almost every other fully-developed country has some form of socialized health care. Like the United State, many of these countries are world leaders. Their citizens do not seem to be laden down with the yolk of tyranny. Besides, the United States has never operated as a pure free market system. There have always been certain elements which have been government-run, from the Federal Reserve to the U.S. Postal Service. Additionally, to say that America will not be able to thrive with this new health care system severely underestimates the adaptability and tenacity of the American people. We have survived events and legislation exponentially more radical than the socialization of health care. Furthermore, we have passed through these gauntlets and trials by fire with grace, ingenuity, and the can-do spirit upon which America was built.
I believe in this country and its greatness. I believe in its citizen. I believe that they are reasonable, good, and hard-working. I trust that they will conduct themselves with the dignity and reason which I know they all possess. And it is with this reason that I hope they will continue to explore both sides of the health care debate to come to the most suitable conclusion for the welfare of the entire nation.
Thank you for your open ear and consideration of the thoughts that have been plaguing me for the past few weeks. I hope that this letter has sparked some thought or perhaps given insight into a different perspective about this national debate.
No comments:
Post a Comment