Paul Krugman explains the Republicans attempt to repeal the health care reform bill. This isn't a question of money, or deficits, or fear of big government. If that were true then the GOP would not have supported the Medicare Part D drug benefit in 2003, or the pointless wars and tax cuts. Krugman points out that the real issue is simply that taking care of poor people is anathema to the GOP.
The key to understanding the G.O.P. analysis of health reform is that the party’s leaders are not, in fact, opposed to reform because they believe it will increase the deficit. Nor are they opposed because they seriously believe that it will be “job-killing” (which it won’t be). They’re against reform because it would cover the uninsured — and that’s something they just don’t want to do.
And it’s not about the money. As I tried to explain in my last column, the modern G.O.P. has been taken over by an ideology in which the suffering of the unfortunate isn’t a proper concern of government, and alleviating that suffering at taxpayer expense is immoral, never mind how little it costs.
I would add that I've yet to hear anyone voice a desire to repeal EMTALA laws that require physicians and hospitals to care for the uninsured without reimbursement. If the Republicans are pure marketers, then why not repeal that too?
3 comments:
Hi Tony - I used to be a little thorn in Leila's (Little Catholic Bubble) side, until she stopped allowing anonymous posts and I decided creating an anonymous account was not worth dealing with her anymore. Even when I was riling her up (which was fun, I admit.)
I am appealing for you to get off her site. Forget them. They cannot concede even to say, "Okay, sometimes the mother's life is in valid peril. I feel terrible for those women, but I personally could not have an abortion even in those circumstances." Instead you have JoAnn "I'm not a medical professional, but..." dispensing advice on what the mother should have done. (Birthed a non-viable baby, died, and then kept it on ventilators for however long it took to go brain dead or survive and be a vegetable-version of a child that the lone surviving father must now sacrifice his whole life and all of his money to wheel around for the sake of "diversity.") Why? Because to even concede a millimeter puts everything they believe in at risk.
They MUST believe that sex is only a gift from God. One cannot partake in this gift, unless it is between a married man and woman, and with the full intent of creating a baby. No premarital, homosexual, oral, manual or any type of "seed spilling" sex is permitted. If they believe this, then there is no need for birth control or abortions. Simple, isn't it?
So the rest of us who do not believe in their particular version of God should be content in abstaining entirely from sex (no masturbating, either!)because obviously our most basic physiological and psychological drive was not meant for us.
To navigate the waters of abortion not being "good" but sometimes necessary would bring up pesky questions. Notice how none of them say the Tillman murder was wrong. Or none of them will touch that letting the mother bleed out and die would be wrong. It all has to be "There is NO circumstance in the world where abortion is necessary." Something can always be done. The murder of a newborn baby is the equivalent of stopping 6 week old cells from replicating.Abortionists are only in it for "blood money" - sounds like a PETA shock documentary.
Just forget it. Let them preach to their own little choir. Don't give them a reason to pounce on you and think they've "bested" you.
Thank you for the sage advice. I have to take that site is measured doses. Having grown up Catholic I'm familiar with the arguments, and it's still astounding to me the literalness with which the faithful take these issues. I know Catholic doctors and priests whose stances on these issues is more nuanced and rational.
Leila's not too bad an advocate, although she tends to go overboard when she lumps criminals into the pro-choice movement. I realize I'm shouting into the abyss, but who knows, maybe one person sitting on the fence, whose sister or cousin may have had an abortion, will see one glimpse of the other side of the debate and carry a little more compassion for that person. If one person can be softened, it might make a difference.
Or not. I appreciate your appeal to back off; I just log on when I'm up for a good argument.
If the Republicans are pure marketers, then why not repeal that too? Ummm, because they're not pure marketeers? :)
Anonymous, I am back to allowing anonymous commenters! And I'm not sure who you are, because I don't remember anyone yet who "riled me up". You are always welcome back! :)
Tony, if you think I don't have compassion for women who have had abortions or who are in a crisis pregnancy, then you have missed HUGE parts of the Catholic faith and Catholic action, not to mention huge parts of my blog.
Blessings!
Post a Comment