Talk of crisis: A categorical and rhetorical examination of argumentative discourse in the 1994 United States Senate floor debate on comprehensive health care reform

Calls for comprehensive reform of the United States health care system have occurred periodically. This study investigates the argumentative discourse which shaped the most recent such demand. Both specific discursive features and overall rhetorical expression were important during the 1994 Senate floor debate, and both are examined in this study. Discursive and rhetorical behavior helped shape the debate and produce an outcome that included the rejection of comprehensive reform proposals.;Two investigatory strategies are employed in this study. First, several specific discursive features--crisis discourse, evidence, narratives, language strategies, and medical metaphors--are examined regarding their individual value in the debate, as well as the role they play in shaping a pattern of argumentation. Second, a rhetorical analysis is conducted that utilizes and extends the genre of crisis rhetoric.;The categorical examination of individual discursive features suggests that each was recognized for and generated particular values. Further, overall examination of these discursive features suggests that a pattern of future-oriented discourse overwhelmed a pattern of present-oriented discourse. The rhetorical analysis suggests that the debate largely revolved around two competing crises. In this rhetorical competition, the crisis of big government subsumes the health crisis and redefines the focus of the debate in a way that contributes to the rejection of the Mitchell proposal for comprehensive reform.