The healthcare debate stopped being about healthcare a long time ago. It had the noblest of intentions: it was supposed to be a bipartisan discussion on a hot button issue that affects us all at some point. Almost all parties involved could agree that there was a problem, and most were looking in the direction of a solution.
Enter politics. Almost immediately, the sides began to shape as they so often do: republicans vs. democrats. And the noxious combination of party affiliation and the endless individual rights/federal poverty relief debate perfumed the air with conflict. People feel strongly about this issue because it’s more personal than most, and people are scared. Those with adequate healthcare toss and turn with nightmares of dirty, overcrowded doctor’s offices: of course they’re afraid of such a radical overhaul. But on the other side of the spectrum, those with inadequate or not health care have to scrape by, and pray they don’t get sick.
To me, fear, looming radical change, and a fiercely political atmosphere cause people to be more vicious debaters than they might have been otherwise.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
can a "debate" really "perfumed the air with conflict"?
ReplyDelete