conservatives = radical
Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2011 22:55:38
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/16/opinion/krugman-free-to-die.htmlFree to Die
By PAUL KRUGMAN
Op-Ed Columnist
Published: September 15, 2011
... during Monday's G.O.P. presidential debate. CNN's Wolf Blitzer asked Representative Ron Paul what we should do if a 30-year-old man who chose not to purchase health insurance suddenly found himself in need of six months of intensive care. .... Mr. Blitzer pressed him again, asking whether "society should just let him die." And the crowd erupted with cheers and shouts of "Yeah!"
The incident highlighted something that I don't think most political commentators have fully absorbed: at this point, American politics is fundamentally about different moral visions.
....
People who can't afford essential medical care often fail to get it, ... and sometimes they die as a result. ... very few of those who die from lack of medical care look like Mr. Blitzer's hypothetical individual who could and should have bought insurance. In reality, most uninsured Americans either have low incomes and cannot afford insurance, or are rejected by insurers because they have chronic conditions. So would people on the right be willing to let those who are uninsured through no fault of their own die from lack of care? The answer, based on recent history, is a resounding "Yeah!"
....
... the percentage of children without health coverage was lower in 2010 than before the recession, largely thanks to the 2009 expansion of the State Children's Health Insurance Program, or S-chip. And the reason S-chip was expanded in 2009 but not earlier was, of course, that former President George W. Bush blocked earlier attempts to cover more children - to the cheers of many on the right. Did I mention that one in six children in Texas lacks health insurance, the second-highest rate in the nation?
So the freedom to die extends, in practice, to children and the unlucky as well as the improvident. And the right's embrace of that notion signals an important shift in the nature of American politics.
In the past, conservatives accepted the need for a government-provided safety net on humanitarian grounds. .... Now, however, compassion is out of fashion - indeed, lack of compassion has become a matter of principle, at least among the G.O.P.'s base. And what this means is that modern conservatism is actually a deeply radical movement, one that is hostile to the kind of society we've had for the past three generations - that is, a society that, acting through the government, tries to mitigate some of the "common hazards of life" through such programs as Social Security, unemployment insurance, Medicare and Medicaid.
This is a big country. Whatever the opinion (or belief - factual or ill-founded), there can be a lot of people holding it, and championing it. But these people are not a majority. The rest of us have got to, at the very least, get off our butts and vote. We can't let this mentally/morally-challenged rabble set the direction of our country. We have all got to care, because we will all have to live - or die, for some - with the results.
[This entry was originally posted as http://syntonic-comma.dreamwidth.org/463601.html on Dreamwidth (where there are
comments).]
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/16/opinion/krugman-free-to-die.htmlFree to Die
By PAUL KRUGMAN
Op-Ed Columnist
Published: September 15, 2011
... during Monday's G.O.P. presidential debate. CNN's Wolf Blitzer asked Representative Ron Paul what we should do if a 30-year-old man who chose not to purchase health insurance suddenly found himself in need of six months of intensive care. .... Mr. Blitzer pressed him again, asking whether "society should just let him die." And the crowd erupted with cheers and shouts of "Yeah!"
The incident highlighted something that I don't think most political commentators have fully absorbed: at this point, American politics is fundamentally about different moral visions.
....
People who can't afford essential medical care often fail to get it, ... and sometimes they die as a result. ... very few of those who die from lack of medical care look like Mr. Blitzer's hypothetical individual who could and should have bought insurance. In reality, most uninsured Americans either have low incomes and cannot afford insurance, or are rejected by insurers because they have chronic conditions. So would people on the right be willing to let those who are uninsured through no fault of their own die from lack of care? The answer, based on recent history, is a resounding "Yeah!"
....
... the percentage of children without health coverage was lower in 2010 than before the recession, largely thanks to the 2009 expansion of the State Children's Health Insurance Program, or S-chip. And the reason S-chip was expanded in 2009 but not earlier was, of course, that former President George W. Bush blocked earlier attempts to cover more children - to the cheers of many on the right. Did I mention that one in six children in Texas lacks health insurance, the second-highest rate in the nation?
So the freedom to die extends, in practice, to children and the unlucky as well as the improvident. And the right's embrace of that notion signals an important shift in the nature of American politics.
In the past, conservatives accepted the need for a government-provided safety net on humanitarian grounds. .... Now, however, compassion is out of fashion - indeed, lack of compassion has become a matter of principle, at least among the G.O.P.'s base. And what this means is that modern conservatism is actually a deeply radical movement, one that is hostile to the kind of society we've had for the past three generations - that is, a society that, acting through the government, tries to mitigate some of the "common hazards of life" through such programs as Social Security, unemployment insurance, Medicare and Medicaid.
This is a big country. Whatever the opinion (or belief - factual or ill-founded), there can be a lot of people holding it, and championing it. But these people are not a majority. The rest of us have got to, at the very least, get off our butts and vote. We can't let this mentally/morally-challenged rabble set the direction of our country. We have all got to care, because we will all have to live - or die, for some - with the results.
[This entry was originally posted as http://syntonic-comma.dreamwidth.org/463601.html on Dreamwidth (where there are
comments).]