Krugam hit piece on Ron Paul

[bobbyw24]

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.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/16/opinion/krugman-free-to-die.html?_r=2&ref=opinion

[Sola_Fide]

The incident highlighted something that I don't think most American political commentators have fully absorbed: at this point, politics is fundamentally about different moral visions.

Yeah Paul, we do have different moral visions. You have a vision of theft, covetousness, and societal destruction....while we have a vision of responsibility, voluntary charity, and true togetherness.



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.


Yeah, let's think of the children Paul. Let's think of the children that your Keyensian tyrants have impoverished for decades. Let's think of the wealth you have stolen from honest people. Let's think of the opportunities your evil system of central control has taken away from generations of children in this economy.

[Kludge]

The root issue is, in part, medical insurance costs skyrocketing for similar reasons as tuition costs -- the government subsidizes them. It can also be a bit difficult to find health insurance which is only for catastrophes, which is all most people'd ever *need* it for. Even Medicaid plans ridiculously cover all sorts of unnecessary devices and treatments... breast pumps, glasses, and gym memberships, to name a few. Over and over in personal finance class, you'll be taught to self-insure with savings, and pay for catastrophe coverage -- we're talking about something like a $10k deductible. That kind of coverage would cost ~$45/mo now, and I guarantee that number would drop to around $30 or lower if gov't weren't subsidizing healthcare and allowing them to get away with unnecessary visits and procedures.

Free clinics are still around in the US, though they'd be much more plentiful were there no massive health welfare system in the US. And yes - it's more than likely many more people would die without Medicaid. But - we're not talking about people dying of something a free clinic could easily treat. Many retailers now offer generic prescriptions at nearly no cost to the uninsured. Walmart sells 90-day prescriptions @ $4, including free home delivery, and you get a $10 certificate just for signing up. - What we're talking about when arguing over who will die are those people Blitzer mentioned, who've been hit with a catastrophe and have no bare-bones coverage. It's probably not likely a person requiring a 6-month stay (which, at current outlandish rates would likely cost around $1.2m) would be able to raise enough to sustain his life. He'll probably die.

-But, consider the mean average wage of a US citizen (2006) is roughly $35,000. For that person's six-month stay in the hospital to be paid for, it requires over 34 (1.2m/35k) years of one "average" person's labor. -And don't forget -- the USG isn't ASKING for that to be paid - they're demanding it in the form of taxes. If someone refuses to pay those taxes (inflated because of Anonymous 30-Year-Old), they can no longer hold a legal job or own property without government taking it away, possibly with jail-time on top of it.

Then, we have to consider if it's worth one man, who failed to insure himself, for 34 years of our collective lives working for the government. Not only that, but is it worth the aggression government must commit in order to collect the necessary funds for the man's stay in the hospital? I don't think so.

[RforRevolution]

Think, in particular, of the children. ...classic appeal to emotionalism.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qh2sWSVRrmo

[Bern]

Q to K: Should people be responsible for their decisions, or should government subsidize stupidity?

[undergroundrr]

Repeating what I said in another thread -

This has come up in 2 debates in a row. "Why don't you libertarians have compassion?"

The masses have to be deprogrammed - to learn to associate a pro-welfare statists like Krugman with the Jeffrey Dahmer-esque image he deserves. Until then, Ron Paul is easy for the media to depict as Uncle Scrooge.

The government impoverishes, imprisons and enslaves the poor, the uninsured and the minorities. The government tricks the disadvantaged into volunteering to be war fodder. The government only has compassion for its rich, white lobbyists and campaign contributors. Everything else is Soylent Green.

A compassionate person doesn't lobby for a government program that funnels money to corporate interests. Compassionate people fight to keep their money so that they can give to some cause that will make the world a better place. The welfare/warfare state now has a 100-year record of making the world a much worse place.

When it comes to Keynesian spending and taxation, the mantra should be "Keep it so you can give it."

[outspoken]

Those who advocate government run sympathy never see the aggression inflicted on the individual that is forced to provide the charity not by their own standards but by the government's.

[wannaberocker]

I thought Krugman would be infavor of "Dying" as a stimulus. Person dies, the family has to pay for the grave, the suit, the coffin etc. Isnt that a Stimulus in Krugman's world?

[The Midnight Ride]

It is funny Krugman mentions this. I seem to recall him advocating death panels as a way of solving our crisis . . .

[jmdrake]

The issue is financial consequences as opposed to health consequences. Ron Paul made it clear that even before the wide availability of public or private health insurance people without cash on hand still got health care. The only question was what happened to the bill? In some cases hospitals and physicians simply "ate it". In some cases churches helped pay the bill. In some cases people paid it off when they could. The real question is "If I choose to gamble financially by not buying health insurance, should the federal taxpayer have to take up the tab?" No. But other people might choose to do so.

[Brian4Liberty]

Think, in particular, of the children.

...classic appeal to emotionalism.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qh2sWSVRrmo

It's almost unbelievable that Krugman could write that with a straight face!