An Unhealthy State of Affairs

I think it’s safe to say that by this point, both the supporters and opponents of health care reform have pulled out nearly every argument that can logically (and illogically) be made. It’s been anything but an orderly process. Of particular note is the “name-calling” aspect of it, and the presumptions each side tends to make of the other. In some cases, those of us on the sidelines are forced to wonder what led them to such astonishing conclusions.

The Right, it seems, has been the more vocal half in this debate. What started as a debate over budget concerns and patient rights has ballooned into accusations of socialism, comparisons to the Nazi Party, and persistent rumors of “death panels” tasked with culling the gene pool of the sick and the elderly. The Left, while certainly less inflammatory, has not been perfectly balanced either. They have painted all opponents of the public option as uninformed, easily-led, and boorish.

Both sets of sentiments arise from differing views of what the American identity represents. From the conservative end, the United States is a bastion of free will, the highest expression of which is a perfectly independent market. Only market competition, they argue, will generate the most effective system of governance, a trend that continues into the realm of health care. To that end, all those who oppose the free market are akin to America’s 20th-century enemies, who have characteristically been portrayed as “overgoverned”. However, under closer inspection, such comparisons make little to no sense; the parallel makes wild assumptions about the intent and motivation of left-wingers, and it displays a great lack of understanding of Nazi or Soviet society.

From the progressive perspective, the United States’ greatest achievement has been to provide more care and safety to those in need than any other society in history. It only seems logical that life-saving medical treatment should be among those services. However, they often fail to recognize, or intentionally downplay, the cost of these services, and they overestimate how effectively such treatment could be administered when regulated by the federal government.

Looking back at the health care fight, I would say that the political flame war was initiated by actual policy differences, and did not incorporate identity issues until later. Though contrary ideals of American identity certainly acted as a catalyst for the conflict, as did partisan maneuvering, the debate wouldn’t have reached this point if the two sides did not actually disagree on funding and organizational matters. It can be hard to consider the actual debate taking place amid the pandemonium created by the opposing camps. Such a ruckus is terribly irresponsible, but sadly does not lack precedent.

Perry Landesberg