By Katherine Yaremko, Columnist
A flourish of presidential pens on Tuesday March 23, 2010 marked the passage of health care bill into legislation which will undoubtedly have a historic impact on the country. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act will give approximately 30 million individuals access to health care who were previously uninsured. Within a decade, the bill will have consumed $938 billion; yet within that same time span, it is expected to curtail the national debt by $138 billion, according to the New York Times.
I was hesitant to write about this issue, as it has received so much coverage. However, I decided it was necessary as some of the arguments against this bill’s passage are less than admirable.
Conservatives have claimed that health care reform is being imposed upon citizens without their consent. They say that when it is time for the bill to be put to a public vote, the nation’s rejection of the initiative will then be evident. Yet polls conducted by CNN and the Associated Press, among others, have demonstrated that the number of people who support reform has increased according to the New York Times Op/Ed Contributor Stanley B. Greenberg.
As with almost anything else political, congressmen and commentators alike have shown far more interest in drawing swords than extending olive branches. No one expects political debates to be civil or efficient. Yet the verbal sparring and tongues slicing that dominates Capitol Hill has shifted the debate’s focus away from its most important point: the human lives it seeks to improve.
The arguments echoing off the House walls are nothing compared to what emerges from certain news commentators. Truly frightening are those such as Glenn Beck, who, in providing his opinions, does not even bother to offer factual information to the public. Everyone is entitled to his or her views, no matter how crazy, illogical or delusional they might be, but that does not mean everyone should be handed regular national airtime and a cozy paycheck.
I am unsure as to whether Beck whole-heartedly believes everything he preaches from his media pulpit, or whether he simply ratchets up the emotional heat as a way of hooking his viewership. Beck and others like him take a serious issue like health care, one that affects millions of lives, and converts it into a parody by drawing absurd and erroneous conclusions. These conclusions are based on nothing except his own stubborn, ignorant convictions. Asserting that the adoption of health care reform is equivalent to accepting socialism, or even fascism, he leads with fear and manipulation, stirring Americans’ emotions but not their reason.
The most frightening aspect is not that Beck actually holds these opinions, but that there are plenty willing to follow him in accepting them. At this point, he no longer remains a harmless commentator simply presenting personal views on health care, but misleads his audience into believing that covering more Americans means a government takeover is looming.
One New York Times Op/Ed contributor noted that Obama could better serve the bill’s passage by not coating it in soaring rhetoric; and I tend to agree. While I’m moved just as easily as anyone by uplifting words, I agree with the assessment that, considering the amount of tenacity that has crystallized in both parties, the most pragmatic and diplomatic approach would be to inform the American public about the direct effects of this bill on them. Lately, words have flown without much explanation behind them; transparency is what is needed.
