A friendly foe of mine sent me a recent article published in the New York Times titled – “FREEDOM TO DIE” by Paul Krugman. The article is further produced below: Free to Die

By PAUL KRUGMAN

Published: 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. Link to the 500+ and ever growing comments posted on this story: My friendly foe was trying to make a point of one-upmanship – but even he failed to see the real hidden message. America is a Nation of advanced citizenship – the brightest minds – the most defensive when it comes to all forms of human freedom’s – and yet this article illustrates how the minds of the mass’ have been tainted to believe that the world is all about America and their own personal freedoms. What happened to the America of 1939 – and then again in ’41 when they came to help rid the world of tyranny? What about the adventurous spirit of 1969 when the put a ‘man on the moon’ … the article above comes out of a mainstream Presidential and Political debate – it fails to address the obvious and the outcome discussions contained within this “FREEDOM to DIE” article as if Americans are all chanting – ‘it’s all about me, and me, and only me’. Does not the Legal system anywhere in the world depend on how much money you have and whether you can hire a ‘brief’ to get you declared innocent – what about all those same impoverished who become subjected to ‘due process’ and end up relying on the Courts mercy to defend them. How is the medical system any different – how do 2/3’s of the world suddenly find a Doctor they can visit any time they want – or receive medical care on demand – America is voicing their opinions through their Presidential candidates – the minority behind this despicable selfish want to win Government at any cost is shameful – the world has not descended to a place where they don’t give a shit about anybody who can’t pay their own way – if it has then the World as we know it is already doomed. No my jackass friend – you have missed the message on so many levels – but then you are not so stupid as to not see when you feel your cold heart – ask yourself if it is a dead heart. A sample of a feedback comment made in relation to the story reads … Comment #22: 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? Submitted by:

David Underwood

Citrus heights, CA

September 16th, 2011

1:48 am There are many more like this – in fact I would say that of the 2500 who liked the above comment – those who led the initial salvo of agreement to the content of the article are now feeling some embarrassment and shame over their original position. Humanity is not dead my furry friend – and whilst voices in America speak as this gentleman has – the far right will not hoodwink a society and take it to armageddon … will humanity will this battle? ________________________________________ The EYE-BALL Opinion …