In the debate over health care reform, he who yells loudest, wins.
At least that seems to be the mindset of people who are showing up across the country at assorted town hall meetings hosted by members of Congress. News reports — especially those on TV and others desperate for drama — show people literally getting in the faces of politicians and screaming at the top of their lungs.
What are they screaming about? Well, the specific words vary, but most are upset with government in general and proposals for health care reform in particular.
Mixed in are the emotions of folks who obviously were on the losing side of the last election. You hear talk about the need to get their country back, while they compare current political trends in Washington to either Nazi Germany or Soviet Russia.
For consistency’s sake, I wish they would pick one or the other.
What’s happening with health care reform hardly reflects either of these totalitarian models. Rather, we are still in the relatively early stages of a legislative process where assorted powerful special interests have a great deal of money at stake.
And we shouldn’t be surprised that those interests want to protect their turf by muddying the political waters.
When Washington shows little or no interest in health care reform, the American people are up in arms over it. They object to the costs, the bureaucracy, the confusion and the insensitivity.
But now that politicians are responding to public demands, there’s suddenly a growing outcry from those who don’t want to put their health and their lives in the hands of the federal government.
Apparently, they’re much more comfortable with the decisions of life and death made by insurance companies.
I’ll be the first to admit that any time Washington seeks to develop major new initiatives, it’s a cause for concern. The rules and regulations drafted in the rarefied air of the nation’s capital don’t always translate well down in the lower atmosphere.
So I have no objection to the Americans asking their representatives tough, pointed questions. They should.
But these same people also need to understand the legislative process. Even though something’s being discussed, it’s still a long way from becoming law.
Most legislative proposals in Washington, Harrisburg and elsewhere never see the light of day. Exploring and examining new ideas — and putting them up for public review — is an essential role in a healthy open society.
Trying to shout ideas down without serious examination is not part of that healthy society. Instead, it’s a symptom of a populace that’s allowing itself to be duped by fear. It’s OK to be suspicious of health care reform, just so long as you’re also suspicious of special interests with huge financial stakes in protecting the status quo.
Consider claims we’ve been hearing about federal “death panels.” Critics of health reform — among them former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin — have attempted to argue proposed legislation would establish boards whose members would assess the seriously ill and elderly, to decide who would live and who would die.
There are, of course, no such panels in any legislation being considered. But Palin’s defenders say that data collection and efforts at cost control sought in new legislation could one day pave the way for these death panels.
But that’s like saying theoretically, I could choke to death while eating my next meal. Therefore, I should never eat again.
I would like to think our society is guided by better logic than this. But the battle over health reform makes me wonder.
