As the August recess comes to a close on Capitol Hill, most political speculation concerns what will happen next to health care reform. With angry constituents at volatile town halls as one of the most well covered news stories of the last month, Congress is filled with anxiety about what the next steps might be.
The legislative debate, since its arrival on the national stage early this summer, has taken a variety of forms. Questions about a public option, how to lower premiums and pay for reform have dominated.
At times I thoroughly enjoyed this debate: finding well thought-out articles on the reaches of the government, the extent to which health care is a "right" or a "privilege" and how health reform has been approached in the past indicates our ability as a country to hold honest debate and discourse on the day's most fundamental problems. Even the President, who cannot help but be conscious of the politics and principles of what he says, seems to repeatedly vie for an actual discussion over what sort of health care reform would best serve the country.
But for every sincere argument and genuine piece of criticism, there are those whose ends far outweigh their means. Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Keith Olbermann. These people are undoubtedly passionate about their cause, fighting daily for their respective sides. Unfortunately, these leading commentators frequently make remarks laden with hyper-partisan exaggeration that asks the viewer to feel outrage rather than consider the problem at hand.
I am sure that Sean Hannity, who hosts a show every night on Fox, believes the health care bills being written would be bad for patients and doctors, insurance companies and the government. Yet he never explains his worries about running up the deficit or the inefficiency of government-run programs in reasonable terms.
My point is not what Hannity or anyone else is arguing about, but rather how they are arguing. Our legislators should ask themselves questions about the role of government when it comes to health care. A public option does not equate to socialism, but Sean Hannity is not without merit to discuss the effectiveness of a private or public health insurance industry.
One reason why Hannity and his peers create black and white dichotomies is because it is good politics. Sean Hannity thinks that the Obama Administration is itself a bad idea, so why not remind his audience that every individual bad idea is simply indicative of a generally horrible presidency? Keith Olbermann of MSNBC thinks that the Right is full of crazies, so why not use every misstep by Republicans as a chance to speak about how the Right is bad for the country?
The problem with this strategy is that those Americans who tune in every night and in some way try to fulfill their sense of civic engagement learn to resort to attacking, rather than asking questions of, the opposing side. Of course, to some extent I am attacking straw men. Everyone denounces partisan politics and the cable news that seems to truly inform no one. But this political playbook pervades the country's discourse, affecting, I am sure, the conversations we have with peers right here on campus.
Here is what I want the conversation to be. I think it would do a world of good if those that protested at town halls this August and families that lost a loved one for lack of health insurance came to the same table and had this discussion together:
"This is what you should be concerned about with any health care legislation: a lack of ability for health care providers to adjust to changing prices, habits and norms in society. You should be worried that the system will become too bogged down by those who honestly want to provide care for everyone but will do so at the expense of an effective marketplace. We should all acknowledge that premiums have gotten out of hand and the millions and millions that do not have health insurance right now are already, to some extent, paid for by our system when they visit an emergency room.
"We should all recognize that working to prevent disease beforehand keeps people healthier and lowers the costs of medicine and procedures when we do get sick. This will require better planning by doctors and healthier living by us. Any legislation should strive to address these issues and more. It should be careful about overreaching, overtaxing, and overregulating, but not be afraid to be bold."
"We should also remember that Congress, whether we want it to or not, will make changes in the future and that this is all a work in progress. Have some faith, be understanding, and at every turn, admit openly and loudly that it is complicated and not everyone will be happy, but we will all work hard to protect the role that everyone plays."
Of course my statement is full of platitudes, which gives no indication as to where "bold" ends and "bogged down" begins. But if platitudes would cut in half the number of people that demonize the opposing side of the political spectrum, I would gladly add a healthy dose of obfuscation to my daily discourse.
Joe Babler is a member of the Class of 2010.