. .] a sure recipe for a second wave of financial disaster" (Segal, 2010), has an overall nonpartisan tone. Instead of focusing on the controversy between the parties, Segal, like Balassa, draws attention to facts. He discusses the vast amount of bankruptcies declared every year in the U.S. As a direct result of health-care costs (Segal, 2010). The most conservative, and by far the largest publication, in the region is the Denver Post; it too sees the issues surrounding of health-care reform apolitically. Turning away from slander and political infighting, the article "Health Care Reform Bill Cuts Deficit," by Robert Pear and David Herzenhorn, discusses what they believe to be the basic concern of the health-care bill as it stands today: the cost to the consumer (2010). Their primary consideration is that the health-care reform bill currently under consideration does little to ease the financial burden of the insured (Pear & Herzenhorn, 2010). Likewise, the paper's columnists, though a bit more passionate about the issue, maintain an apolitical stance as well. (the two I have chosen to discuss here show the extremes of opinion on the issue.) David Harsanyi, in his article "Does Process Matter?: actually in the case of health care it matters a lot" (2010), expresses his concern about voters' rights and the integrity of the political process in the current debate. He maintains that "sometimes process is vital in protecting the American people from the abuse of [sic] majoritarians and crusading tyrants" (2010) and sometimes it delays the passing of a bill. His main objective is to remind the readers that no matter how frustrating the struggle between political parties becomes and how their skirmishes delay the process of policy making, they should never agree to the suspension of civil rights and allow politicians to decide policy without representation. He supports the American system of government and not either political party. Similarly, Dan Haley, in his article "Just say no to the status quo," finds fault not with a particular party but with the "shoddy job" he believes both parties are doing on the current bill (2010). He points out, through the voices of various political commentators, that the bill as it stands "is worse than the current system" (Haley, 2010). He ultimately concludes that our political system, a system where elected officials are forced to care more about getting re-elected than about doing their job, is to...

The populace -- whether Democrat, Republican, Liberal, or Conservative -- has seen passed the partisan and political backtalk of the individual parties and is concerned with the ultimate need for health-care reform. Instead of pigeonholing opposition to the current Congressional proposals into party lines, perhaps it would benefit politicians to adapt an approach, similar to the one taken in this paper, and apply it to their constituencies. By comparing the voices of seemingly disparate groups, an amalgamate course of action might be reach.