I've asked the question before: is it the government's job to provide healthcare for those who can't afford it or aren't able to access it? I still haven't decided, but I think I understand the concerns of the people on both sides of the issue a little better after watching CSPAN and listening to hour after hour of debate in the U.S. House.
Colorful speakers took anywhere from 15 seconds to 5 minutes to add their perspective to the bill being considered. Many of the loudest really didn't add much to the discussion. The calmest speakers seemed to know more. Funny how that works out.
The premise on one side is everyone should have health insurance. They believe our country is wealthy... or at least a lot of people in this country are wealthy enough to provide healthcare for those who can't afford it. At the core of their argument, most of the Democratic speakers maintained, its wrong for sick people to be second guessed by businessmen before receiving medical treatment. They painted a grim picture of the current system, made of bad guys and evil doers, who would rather see people die than loose money.
The other side pretty much disregards all of those points, and focuses on different issues altogether. For example, can the country afford this healthcare reform and what gives the Congress the authority to mandate health insurance for every American.
I think a lot of regular folks, like my grandparents, don't like to see other regular folks struggle. And that's the bottom line. They live through the depression and a World War, the second one, and saw how the country pulled together to not only fix this country, but also to improve living conditions for people all over the world. At the same time, they don't like government in their personal affairs. They would probably tell the people having this healthcare reform debate to help people, but don't mettle unnecessarily.
No comments:
Post a Comment