Watching politics is a fascinating way to pass the time. People always find new ways to repackage the same basic debates in ever different forms. The media float above the fray, supposedly with a dispassionate eye. The code of the professional journalist preserves a neutral position, identifying the key facts and giving both sides of the debate a fair hearing. Unfortunately, the arrival of Fox News and the rise of the Right Wing Jocks has produced an opinion-based approach to reporting the news. This is not simply skewing the coverage. It is actually introducing new levels of venom into the debate itself, raising the profile of news reporters and commentators as demagogues, and personalising the attacks made on government. No other issue has raised the heat of passion in the debate as the proposal to reform the provision of healthcare in the US. Many on the right of the political spectrum see these proposals as a direct attack on their individual liberties and as promoting big government. They approve the rise of activism that has seen groups around the US protesting in the Town Hall Meetings run during the summer and in the so-called Tea Party protests which focus on the rise of big government and the redistribution of wealth through alleged socialist measures.
As a momentary aside, let us make a politically incorrect observation of fact. The membership of the Republican Party is, with the exception of the tokens like Michael Steele, mainly a party of white people. Similarly, the vast majority of the protesters in the events organized in 2009 are white. It is just a coincidence that the primary focus of their anger is Barack Obama. That said, the key measure in the reform package is some change to the current system of insurance. The supporters of reform argue in favor of mandatory insurance. As it is, a significant percentage of the young and healthy do not buy insurance. This forces a sharing of the cost of healthcare among a smaller and older group of people. If all adults were required to hold a policy, it would share the cost of care out among a larger group and so reduce the premiums for everyone. But the suggestion of a mandate to buy insurance is a red flag to the Republicans. The Fund for Personal Liberty has formally promised action if such a bill is signed into law. It will claim the law is unconstitutional, breaching Article 1, Section 8. For those of you uncertain of Section 8, it lists the powers of Congress but does not include mandates to interfere with the purchasing decisions made by citizens. The Fund will argue that the list is exclusive and this use of legislation is therefore unconstitutional.
In a sense, it does not matter who is proved right in the courts. What is clear is the passion on both sides of the debate about how the health insurance industry should be reformed, if at all. For those of who who need to get on with our lives with some insurance in place, spending time online is essential to find as many health insurance quotes as possible. We need to shop around to get the best deal. Selfishly, we would all hope for the premiums to fall. If it takes a mandate to force everyone to carry insurance, that seems a small price to pay.
Comments :
0 comments to “Passionate debate about healthcare reform”
Post a Comment