Rhetoric of the Current Healthcare Debate - Essay Example

Compare and contrast the d goals and rhetoric of the current health care debate to discuss how each side frames their discussion with regard to what’s best for health of families, and analyze implied meanings of their rhetoric from social science perspectives No such heated debate had ever been seen in the US history like the current debate on health care reforms. Compulsions and obsessions have been noticed though on an ever ring scale here. The polity has been subject to a degree of overarching philosophizing by politicians and government officials over the issue. This discourse on health care provision and its shape has divided the nation on clear cut lines of ‘those who have the audacity to argue that public or government provision of health care would be the beginning of the end of all merits associated with private provision’ and ‘those who argue that government provision of health care services would bring down the cost of medical care’ (Rooney, Patrick and Perrin, 2008). The social transformation process of the family as the most important constituent in the society ought to receive special consideration here. In the process terms and concepts have been redefined and reexamined. For instance the word “family” has acquired a hitherto unprecedented dimension because health care policies would be more family friendly and above all made available with a near universal impact on the very family which stands out as the representative unit of societal cohesiveness. The associated nuances of health care debate go further than this. By implication the debate has not only given rise to a diverse and complex set of outcomes but also produced a set of connotations and denotations about what health care policy discourse ought to be like. Familial contextual relevance of the debate rests on the response of family to health care reforms and their impact on changing the family’s qualitative status with reference to such variables as longevity and quality of life of the average member. Social welfare policy debates have been raging all over the world about all variety of topics though the current debate on health care under President Barak Obama is known to have been a typical exception due to many reasons (Anchorage Daily News, 2009). In the first instance its detractors have carried out one litmus test after the other to discredit not the President but the outcome, viz. government getting involved in public affairs that were hitherto managed by private enterprise. Secondly the economic debate over how would the money be raised to implement the policy. Thirdly how far the tax payer would go in accepting the government’s proposal for a more comprehensive health care system, is yet uncertain. Finally the often family-centric health care policies now tend to be treated as the exclusive responsibility of the state. On the other hand the supporters have more or less been banking their hopes for a successful outcome of the debate in their favor on the classical dichotomy of opinion among those who are opposed to the government becoming a mammoth octopus-like public corporation. Those who believe in the government involvement in the provision of health care are not many though they have been able to win over support of the most unlikely groups over the weeks simply because the opposition is not sure whether there is real substance to the argument put forward by the politicians in the opposing camp. The argument of them is based on the fact that weakening of the private enterprise would go so far as to shift resources away from efficient uses to less efficient uses. This has given enough ammunition to the supporters, i.e. a shift in resources would not weaken the private enterprise as feared by those who oppose the government provision of health care but in fact would qualitatively change the provision process. In other words it’s a catalyst that would emphasize family oriented provision of health care thus bringing in members of the whole family under the protective umbrella of the state health care policy (World Health Staff, 2000). While the assumption seems to gather some momentum among even the fiercest critics of Obama administration, there are those residual elements that still question the motive behind the government’s unplanned rushing into the alien territory. However the rhetoric of both those supporters and opponents on either side of the divide is obvious enough. There is very little substance to the opponents’ claim that the state provision of health care would erode the level of efficiency of the private enterprise because even if the government abstains the laissez faire system has indisputably been oblivious to the fact that many families have been deprived of health care coverage due to the so called ‘ruthless efficiency of the private health care industry’. According to those who lean on an interpretation based on structural functionalism, the societal system consisting of various individual units such as families has been torn apart by the monopoly power inherent in private health care provision. The raison d’être provided by them is too simplistic though because systemic units in the whole such as families and health insurance providers have their respective interests that are pushed incessantly forward by each. Therefore a single univariate paradigm does not exist. The respective argumentative postures adopted by the proponents and the opponents have been characterized by bias and prejudice. For instance a new item published in The Washington Post claims that both the Senate Finance Committee (SFC) and the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) can be right when they put out their separate estimates on health care reforms (Montgomery, Sept. 18, 2009). The former estimated the overall cost for the coming decade at $ 856 billion while the latter estimated it at $ 774 billion. According to the same news item bipartisan political rhetoric has little acceptance outside the legislature. The difference comes from the non-partisan CBOs stance that only those hither to uninsured would be covered by the reforms while the SFC holds the view that peripheral expenses would rise to reach the limit of $ 900 billion set by President Obama. What role does family play here is uncertain though except to reorient the debate towards treating the family as an inclusive entity central to the very health care reforms being proposed by the state. It is obvious that the current healthcare debate has been more or less like a political ping-pong game played by two camps that are interested in consociational rhetoric that is replete with argumentum ad absurdum. In the first instance cost overruns over a decade cannot be factored in to the equation with accuracy. Secondly such estimates become irrelevant when successive governments shift emphasis from one commitment to the other. Finally the rhetoric of both the proponents and the opponents has effectively pulled a red herring over the more significant and relevant issues related to healthcare reforms, i.e. the place and significance of the family in the whole health care reform effort. While symbolic exchange has little relevance to the unfolding debate on healthcare reforms, the current debate essentially has some dynamic connotations and denotations associated with social conflict theory. Assuming that Obama Administration has been adopting a bipartisan agenda in promoting wider social welfare policies, the opposition has much less to claim for itself except class conscious behavior. Thus social conflict theory would presuppose the inevitability of conflict based on class interests and identity. However in the absence of a clearly defined health reform agenda, the proponents of healthcare reform are no better than the opponents (Alaskas News paper, 2009). Democrats have much more too loose by not supporting healthcare reforms while Republicans have much less to loose on the same score. Social conflict theory essentially places emphasis on the familial homogeneity to achieve predefined socially desirable outcomes. Societal transformation processes involve families and are identified with individual efforts and in this instance healthcare reforms have been suggested from time to time by such individuals as Lynden Johnson, Bill Clinton and now Barrack Obama. Johnson was selected President at a time when the US society was less sure of its political direction. Johnson placed much emphasis on both healthcare reforms and poverty eradication. Almost five decades later Obama is still far behind Johnson (ABC News, 2009).Thus it is more than obvious that healthcare reforms in the US are regarded as kind of anathema by a sizable percentage of the population. REFERENCES 1. Editorial Staff. “Sen. Murkowski sounds off on health care reform”. Alaska’s Newspaper, August 21 2009, Retrieved From: www.community.adn.com on September 16 2009. 2. Gillis, Alec M. “Obama Rallies Labor in Fight for Health-Care Reform”, ABC News. September 15 2009. Retrieved From: www.news.google.com on September 16 2009. 3. Jenkins, P. “Critic of Obama’s health plan on the mark”. Anchorage Daily News. September 4 2009. Retrieved From: www.adn.com on September 16 2009. 4. Montgomery, L. “How much the Baucus Bill Costs-and Why the Numbers Differ” The Washington Post. September 18 2009. Retrieved From: www.voices.washingtonpost.com on September 16 2009. 5. RooneyJ. Patrick Rooney (Author) › Visit Amazons J. Patrick Rooney Page Find all the books, read about the author, and more. See search results for this author Are you an author? Learn about Author Central , Patrick R. and Perrin, D. Americas Health Care Crisis Solved: Money-Saving Solutions, Coverage for Everyone New Jersey: Wiley & Sons inc, 2008. 06. World Health Staff. The World Health Report 2000 - Health Systems: Improving Performance. Switzerland, World Health Organization, 2000. Read More