I was watching the local news on television the other night, and heard two consecutive news stories that had me taking a deeper look into personal politics.
The first news story was about the Republicans and their most recent attempt at overturning the Health Care Reform legislation (Please, for the love of God, don't refer to it as ObamaCare because the only thing that means is that you're either a buzzword-spouting sycophant or an intentionally misleading malcontent). It noted how the most common objection by politicians regarding the health care bill is that, by allowing the government to take a greater stake in how health care is paid for, our level of quality health care will decrease and, ultimately, the cost of our health care will rise.
Hit the break for more.
I disagree with position on a number of levels. Firstly, our level of health care in comparison to the global average is not that good, so the idea that we have the best doctors of the best medical facilities or whatever is pure nationalist fantasy. Secondly, some of the best hospitals in our country are military hospitals-- it's been attested to by the U.S. Daily News, fer chrissakes-- and they're government run. Thirdly, by divvying up the costs between all working members of the population, unless the cost of actual medical procedures rises exorbitantly, it mathematically has to reduce the cost of health care.
Now the Republicans in Congress are trying increasingly convoluted methods in attempts to repeal the legislation. It's going to be inherently difficult, as they don't control the Senate and hold a slim margin in the House of Representatives, but they're trying almost more as a gesture than as applicable action. But, then again, that's a lot of politics: more posturing than execution. Even so, I'm hoping that continued attempts at the repeal fail.
But, ultimately, that's not the reason I'm writing this piece.
After the piece on health care, the piece that immediately followed was about a pair of Minnesota teenagers who were allowed to walk as part of their high school's winter pep fest. This wouldn't be that notable, save for the fact that both of the students were female, and openly lesbian.
As the story goes, this pair of students was elected to the royalty court and requested to walk together during the traditional walk to the podium during the ceremony. The school board, claiming that they wanted to avoid the students being teased, changed the rules to require the students walking with a parent or favorite teacher. Immediately, civil rights groups stepped in and the long story short version is that the girls got to walk together.
On the local news, it was pointed out that many conservative groups want the government to step in and put restrictions in place regarding homosexuals: from whether or not they can marry, to the legalities of them co-owning property and assets, to their options for children.
It occurred to me then, the hypocrisy of the opinions held by conservative groups. In regard to the matter of social decorum, with the gay students, conservative groups were standing there asking for the government to step in and say that this wasn't okay. But in the matter of national interest, with the health care reform, those same groups were telling the government to keep their filthy hands off.
The same moment that thought occurred to me, however, I was struck by the coin flip of the idea. I, as a liberal, wanted the government to keep its filthy hands off the issue of the gay students, human rights and freedoms being what they are. But, at the same time, when dealing with the national level issue of health care, I wanted the government to lay down some rules.
The conclusion I came to is this: despite the rhetoric, both liberals and conservatives want government to intervene at some location. The only difference is where on the map that location lies.
And if that's the truth, well, we're one step closer to understanding each other, aren't we?
No comments:
Post a Comment