Replies to post #154231 on Tornado Alley (PROG)

[StephanieVanbryce]

Perry said Americans need more Christian values in general. “It is important that [Christian leaders] stand in the pulpit every day and defend those values, those Christian values,” Perry said. “America is going to be guided by some set of values. The question is going go to be: Whose values?”

The Texas governor said he believes America will be guided by “the Christian values that this country was based upon.”

http://dailycaller.com/2011/09/14/perry-pauses-politics-turns-to-faith-in-liberty-university-speech/#ixzz1Y8UkRq4N

[StephanieVanbryce]

Free to Die

Paul Krugman September 15, 2011

Back in 1980, just as America was making its political turn to the right, Milton Friedman lent his voice to the change with the famous TV series “Free to Choose.” In episode after episode, the genial economist identified laissez-faire economics with personal choice and empowerment, an upbeat vision that would be echoed and amplified by Ronald Reagan.

But that was then. Today, “free to choose” has become “free to die.”

I’m referring, as you might guess, to what happened 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. Paul replied, “That’s what freedom is all about — taking your own risks.” 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.

Now, there are two things you should know about the Blitzer-Paul exchange. The first is that after the crowd weighed in, Mr. Paul basically tried to evade the question, asserting that warm-hearted doctors and charitable individuals would always make sure that people received the care they needed — or at least they would if they hadn’t been corrupted by the welfare state. Sorry, but that’s a fantasy. People who can’t afford essential medical care often fail to get it, and always have — and sometimes they die as a result.

The second is that 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!”

Think, in particular, of the children.

The day after the debate, the Census Bureau released its latest estimates on income, poverty and health insurance. The overall picture was terrible: the weak economy continues to wreak havoc on American lives. One relatively bright spot, however, was health care for children: 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. Don’t take it from me, take it from Friedrich Hayek, the conservative intellectual hero, who specifically declared in “The Road to Serfdom” his support for “a comprehensive system of social insurance” to protect citizens against “the common hazards of life,” and singled out health in particular.

Given the agreed-upon desirability of protecting citizens against the worst, the question then became one of costs and benefits — and health care was one of those areas where even conservatives used to be willing to accept government intervention in the name of compassion, given the clear evidence that covering the uninsured would not, in fact, cost very much money. As many observers have pointed out, the Obama health care plan was largely based on past Republican plans, and is virtually identical to Mitt Romney’s health reform in Massachusetts.

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.

Are voters ready to embrace such a radical rejection of the kind of America we’ve all grown up in? I guess we’ll find out next year.


http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/16/opinion/krugman-free-to-die.html?src=recg { WITH EXCELLENT COMMENT ..here:[ http://community.nytimes.com/comments/www.nytimes.com/2011/09/16/opinion/krugman-free-to-die.html ]

Right NOW - Top of the Page

When I was young we would get our international news at the Newsreel Theaters. One newsreel that made a lifetime impression on me, showed people dying on the streets in India. It showed them just being taken off the street in carts and put put in pyres to be cremated on the banks of the Ganges.

The narrator said something to the effect, that we did not have these conditions in the U.S. We did not have people starving to death, or just dying on the street because our society did not let those kind of things happen. I can not recall anyone from any party advocating allowing people to just die on the street.

My how our society has changed in the past 60 years. I can not recall such mean spirited groups of people having any voice in polite society. Today we accept such behavior as being acceptable. Of course there have been various individuals who would advocate such behavior and they even had a few followers, but good people in general shunned them.

Now we have various demagogues such as Glenn Beck, and Rush Limbaugh with their mass of followers, and they have become part of the mainstream. They have orchestrated a culture of hate that includes, liberals, illegal immigrants, atheists, and other ethnic groups that do not reflect their ideas as to what the country should look like, and how it should be managed.

These people seem to have lost their very souls, their connection to humanity. There seems to be something amiss among these people who cheer at news of how many people have been put to death in Texas and now, who encourage allowing those who have no means to get needed medical treatment, to just go die somewhere.

Is this the new American morality? Are these the future leaders of the country? Will your children and grand children be the ones left to die on the sidewalk?