Why not compassion in health debate?

Fear and trembling, anger and divisiveness. Are these the appropriate ways to approach health care? Is truth found in unquestioning loyalty to a political party? Isn't the thing actually far simpler? Isn't it really about how much you care for your fellow man? You've got yours. What should he have?

Sir Kenneth Clark once said the mark of civilization was how well a society cares for its weakest members, those in sickness and need, those aged and infirm, those small and vulnerable. Civilization shows itself in nurturing those among us who cannot wholly defend themselves.

In this very wealthy county of DuPage we have heard remarkable expressions of fear, trembling, anger, divisiveness - and curiously uncivilized discourse in the matter of health care. Radio and Phone Talk conducted by showmen and by politicians has brought out stunning expressions of dislike and self-defense. It would seem that the great wealth of the county will be cast down to nothing if health reform is passed. Some great evil will be loosed upon the land if the public is asked to share in the care of fellow citizens.

But the question remains, like Aesop's small mouse gnawing at the rope holding the lion: How much do you care about your fellow man? Enough to be sure that he and his family are healthy? That they can be well enough to work, to attend school, to care for their own families? Enough that they can contribute to making this a civilized society?

Why the fear? Why not instead boldness and confidence in the country (and the county)? Why not the Constitution, where it says "in order to form a more perfect union ... promote the general Welfare?" It's really very simple and brave and civilized to support health care reform. Don't be misled.

Marilyn Wiedemann

Glen Ellyn