Why do we need a disaster in another country to put helping people before our petty disagreements. Though I am aware that arguing against relief in Haiti would be daft, I am willing to bet that health care reform would save as many lives as relief in Haiti.
Haitians are not the only ones who need help. Why, then, do we unquestioningly (except Rush Limbaugh) feel the need to help the Haitians but not our neighbors? The answer is simple. Which is going to be a more frightening and compelling news story, the story about a man dying slowly and quietly from unnoticed cancer or a boy who had to throw his father's remains in a mass grave after he died from starvation? I think the boy is much more compelling, though they are both about two preventable deaths.
The media and senators choose to help the Haitians so unquestioningly because they would look like psychopaths if they didn't. It is much easier to ignore a silent killer than a natural disaster that leaves a city flattened.
""now's not the time to focus on politics, it’s time to focus on helping people"
ReplyDeleteI really don't see what's wrong with saying this. Regardless of what we ideally-ideally-ideally should be doing (help everybody all the time, other human lives before everything else, etc), of course there are times where people think about themselves or other things instead. As in, if my cousin were to die I'd probably be emotionally attached to it than the large amount of people I know are dying/have died in Haiti. I can safely say that in my daily routine I was more concerned with myself and people I know than Haitians about 99% of the time-- I didn't think about Haiti when getting ready for school, petting my cat, receiving my grades back, eating dinner, etc, and I think that's perfectly normal. I only thought about Haiti when looking at the cover of news media, in all honesty.
Humans have limited capacity to deal with far away events and big figures of death-- this is nothing new. There's a lot we should do to help, but if we stop every concern in our lives for the fact that there is suffering in other places, we would go insane. In my opinion, there is absolutely no reason why caring about Haiti makes the health care debate less strong, and there is no reason why concerns over politics cannot coexist with humanitarian aid within or outside of America. If we had to give up one for the other entirely, we would have problems.
"I am willing to bet that health care reform would save as many lives as relief in Haiti."
Over what time span? Haitians don't even have the basics, I think you could save a lot more lives by doing very simple things. America needs structural change for making a big difference in health care. To a large extent, Haiti just needs basic things (doctors, bandages, medicines, etc.)
"I just don't understand why our country, and indeed all countries, are so steeped in political battles that help no one. I guess what makes me angriest, is the way that Bush says it so plainly and no one says anything to dispute his statement."
That doesn't make sense. The Bush quote you used was saying, exactly, that politics shouldn't come before helping people. Why would you express frustration at Bush making this claim undisputed if you're saying, at the same time, that we are "steeped in political battles that help no one" rather than helping people? You're in agreement with Bush.
"Shouldn't every moment be a moment when helping people comes before politics?"
I think this question is bizarre when put up next to the other things you're saying in this blog (that health care is more important to focus on than Haiti). Health care in America is, by nature, much more political than sending relief to Haiti, in my opinion. Aside from that, you're suggesting there's a sort of super-simple, apolitical way of passing great health care reform. Talks about structure and taxes/funding, not to mention a ton of other things, is inherent in health care reform.
"You're suggesting there's a sort of super-simple, apolitical way of passing great health care reform."
ReplyDeleteThe thing that you are forgetting about healthcare reform is that the bill as it is now has been proposed by both democrats and republicans at one point or another. The problem is that the republicans find insignificant problems with it so the Dems don't get the credit and the Dems find little issues so the republicans don't get the credit.
"The Bush quote you used was saying, exactly, that politics shouldn't come before helping people."
His quote, in context (you can find the transcript on CBS) made it very clear that this time is the exception to the rule of politics. It bothers me that this is for some reason assumed to be apolitical.
Healthcare reform would save more lives than Haitian relief for one big reason, America is much much much bigger than Haiti. Just the uninsured in Americans, 46 million, greatly outnumbers the Haitian 9 million before you think of the preventative care that many insured Americans miss out on.
I'm not saying that Haiti relief is unimportant, I say, "I am aware that arguing against relief in Haiti would be daft." I know that arguing against haitian relief is ridiculous. Most of the rest of America can see that. I just don't understand why the rest of America can't see that arguing about death panels and socialism is also daft.
See my posts
http://samerica222.blogspot.com/2010/01/christians-who-dont-understand.html
http://samerica222.blogspot.com/2009/08/oreilly-question.html