By Trevor Hobler
With the disparity between the wealthiest Americans and everyone else widening, people are asking themselves what their leaders are doing to help the ever-worsening situation. For Democrats, the answer is to pretend to enact meaningful legislation. After all, one does not win elections by doing things; they win by putting on the best show. For Republicans, however, the strategy is largely not to pretend to solve the problem but to pretend there is no problem. This ends up being a double-edged sword because claiming that all talking points are only “liberal hysteria” is a very effective way to motivate voters. However, this practice backfires when voters start to wise up on these issues through their personal experience. Once this begins to happen, no one can say the issue does not exist, and while liberals may have no viable solution, they still need to come up with their own option.
Health care is especially difficult for Republicans to deal with, as the accepted solution that other countries have all agreed on is to provide universal healthcare. That way, everyone can go to a hospital if they need to or seek medical attention without fear of being put into crippling, and sometimes lifelong, debt. This option is seen as radical even by some on the “left,” but that seems to be the safest and most effective solution that we have to solve such an issue. This issue should also not be seen as radical for Republicans, as 63 percent of Americans support the government supplying healthcare according to Bradley Jones, a researcher from Pew Research Center. This is not a secret either, and Republican candidates know that even their voters are concerned about health insurance and medical bills. In the Pennsylvania Senate election of Fetterman versus Oz, both candidates acknowledge the problem with expensive medical care. The difference in approach to their solutions, however, is humorous.
Fetterman claims that healthcare is a human right, much like water and food. People should be able to get health care, as not getting sick and dying is something that should be accessible to even those that are poor. This information can be easily found on his Senate campaign website.
Oz thinks that is an absurd proposition, however, because instead of providing free government healthcare to those that cannot afford it, we should enforce everyone to have it through their own means. That is very idiotic because people that can afford healthcare will have healthcare. This is not a unique opinion of Oz, as health insurance mandates are generally worthless, including Obama’s.
If the goal is to get everyone insured, give them insurance. It really is that easy, but by insisting that there are other ways to remedy this issue, Republicans continue to deny their own voters access to something that many other nations take for granted. Admitting one is wrong is a skill, and I understand that it doesn’t come to everyone very easily, myself included. However, this should be something that anyone can do if they intend to serve as a representative on the national level. Another problem with desiring universal healthcare is that there would be one less divisive talking point that Republicans can use to vilify Democrats. The most important stance of the Republican party is that they are not Democrats, and having one similarity, even a widely popular one, is unacceptable.
Again, I would like to direct your attention to that survey, the one that says that most Americans want the government to provide healthcare for everyone. This is a popular policy, and Democrats seem rather incapable of implementing anything of the sort. This should be a prime opportunity for Republicans to achieve such a thing and do something genuinely helpful for millions of Americans. People generally vote for the things that benefit them, and healthcare would be a policy most voters would look to with concern.
From my perspective, it is obvious as to why they do not do such a thing. Republican candidates all over the country have primed their voters to be revolted by the idea of universal healthcare, causing a wave of people that would directly benefit from such a program to be adamantly opposed to it on a strictly ideological level.
This policy that is already widely popular would likely be more universally favored if not for this repetitive talking point. The concept that “the government is big and unhelpful; they can’t manage your healthcare,” has little solace to those who are both already burdened by enormous medical debt and those who will be.
We let the government handle the things we do not trust the free market to do, and I do not think the decision to let someone afford potentially lifesaving surgery is something I am willing to leave up to the profit motive.
