Health care reform in the United States

Perceptions of Health-Care Reform

In the Front Range

In Colorado, the topic of healthcare reform in the Boulder-Denver metro area is addressed apolitically. Yes, there are certainly right- and left-wing opinions aplenty, but the median voice is overall nonpartisan. By examining editorial columns and syndicated articles in several local publications, this paper provides a good cross-section of the populace's opinion. A newspaper's choice of articles reflects both the politics of the newspaper itself and, as a matter of good business, of its readers; the editorial columns and letters to the editor display reader opinion more directly. Looking at a variety of local articles on health-care reform shows the gamut of the area's political opinion: It spans from the uber-liberal voice of Boulder's most politically left publication, the Boulder Weekly, to the more conservative voice of Denver's major newspaper, the Denver Post. Despite the severity of their superficial differences, all the articles examined for this paper view the issue of health-care reform in terms of the populace and not in terms of the individual agendas of either party. In general, discontent with the progress of health care reform is apparent, but the target of the discontent is not ultimately with one party or another, but with the political system.

The Boulder Weekly presents health-care in a "good guy vs. bad guy" binary: politicians vs. everybody else. Chris Gay, in his article called "The Wrong Argument: the democrats approach doesn't explain why the market can't fix health care," believes the biggest problem facing health-care reform is misinformation. According to Gay, "[t] here is a profound conflict between market goals and public-health goals" (Gay, 2009, pp 4) that neither the republicans nor the democrats address. Privatized health-care, as a profit-making venture, is more concerned with margins and shareholders' interests than it is with their customers' health. Gay reminds readers that insurance companies gain from increasing deductibles and withholding coverage from the sick (Gay, 2009). In his opinion, neither Democrats nor Republicans tackle this problem. Instead, both parties fight over subsidiary issues. Though seemingly nonpartisan, Gay is ultimately liberal and unfortunately resorts to mudslinging to prove his point. While talking about the Republican approach to reform, he asserts that "right-wing scare tactics" and their promotion of "misinformation" has "prevailed" and kept the bill from being passed (Gay, 2009). Another the Boulder Weekly article, "House Poised to Pass Historic Health Care Reform" addresses one of these underhanded tactics directly (McClathy, 2009). McClathy believes that the introduction of federally subsidized abortion into the health-care reform debate overshadows the intrinsic necessity for socialized health-care; resting the success of the health-care reform on the contingency of such a heated topic, skirts the primary issues at stake in the bill itself (McClathy, 2009). Despite his anti-Republican approach, Gay illuminates for his readers the fundamental problem with our current health-care system: the fiscal motives of the companies running it.

A slightly more conservative publication, the Colorado Daily, the university paper, echoes the sentiments of the Boulder Weekly without the name-calling hype. The editorial article, "Not-for-Profit financing is key," addresses the issue of corporate health-care, but rather than flinging accusations at Republicans tactics and politics, John Balassa opts for a more constructive style; he offers options instead of criticism. He points to the success of national health-care systems in other countries (Balassa, 2010). His approach, instead of ostracizing party members from each other by laying blame on Democrats or Republicans finds a neutral place to focus attention, outside the political debate itself. His choice of topic shows the readers a positive outcome from political action, whereas the Weekly's radical blame of political positioning focuses on the negative. The stories from the Associated Press the Colorado Daily chose to print reflect this more tolerant readership. The article, "After Summit, Democrats push ahead with Health-Care Reform," reports on the facts and not the acumen surrounding the Republican gain of the majority in Massachusetts. It presents a nonbiased discussion on how such a power flux can affect the health-care reform bill. It states simply that the Democrats "vowed to move forward without Republican support" (2010). Even Brad Segal's opinion column, entitled "Health Care Reform Cannot Wait," though passionate in its appeal, calling the Republican 'Do nothing / wait until we are back in power' plan [ . . .] 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).