Americans wanted change. Right? Not so fast.
Maybe the proper phrasing would be: Americans wanted change?
As far as I am concerned, the Republicans are a party based on traditional, inchanging values. Most would probably be content with women still running the household, men marrying only women and women only men, children being raised in all white neighbourhoods and going to a traditional public school where students are fully within their rights to have a handgun in their backpacks - so long as it is registered with the State. Separate God from State? Never! Why would you not want 'In God We Trust' printed on everything from currency to the walls in judicial chambers? Who cares about torture and human rights, so long as American freedom to rule the world and all of its oil is maintained?
Obama promised change. That is what he campaign was based on. Change for an American people who said, at that time, that they were ready for change. That they wanted something different - something better.
But, like a spoiled child, this did not last long. They wanted change then, right then. If change didn't happen right then, they didn't want it to happen at all. So then when the Public Option was presented they had already presented something better. When Obama didn't deliver within the first 100 days in office they became restless and were bought by the health care industry.
Obama's Public Option shows the fickle nature of the American people. They say they want change, but they don't. Either that or they only want some kinds of change.
For instance, I have a friend - and I emphasize friend because we have debates such as this often - who is a gay man and is very impatient for change to come in the gay community. The more the better and the sooner it comes the happier he will be. More power to 'im as far as I am concerned. But then he turns around and says that healthcare cannot be changed too quickly because of the uproar Obama has caused with the Public Option. How does that make sense? This friend of mine was a hardline Obama supporter until, it seems, the man was actually elected and the honeymoon ended.
Yes, it would be wonderful to legalize gay marriage in the US, but is it life and death? No. Is health insurance? For tens of millions of Americans, the answer would be yes. So why this blatent double standard? Why does rapid change matter only in situation a but not in situation b, when situation b is so much more urgent than a?
Obama proposed reform will only affect people positively. For those who need affordable health insurance (such as those, say, making $5.00/hour at 3 different jobs), they will have access to it. Many of the 'working poor' are within one head cold of bankruptcy. I see bills coming into my job at the Ontario Health Insurance Plan (OHIP - Ontario publicly funded health insurance plan) for $500 to simply have a sinus infection treated! It will also have a positive effect on private health insurance premiums - with the cheaper competition, these companies with be force to lower their premiums to retain their competitive edge. Win-win, is it not?
Then why the resistance?
You know I was wondering that too. Supporters of Obama were loving him until he was actually elected and then they seemed to change their mind once he was in office and said he did nothing. I know I don't live there and I don't see the effects or anything first hand but he seems to be doing ok. As for the health insurance I think that everyone should have access to affordable healthcare. Someone could be seriously ill and not able to seek medical attention because it's too expensive. I know that if I was working in the same job over there I would find it difficult to pay health insurance. A few years back I was suffering from WPW syndome and had to have a little operation because it got really bad and there would have been no way I could have afforded it over there.
ReplyDelete