Health

How Politico Lost Their Moral Compass!

Neal Gabler and Matthew Kells in Times Square

Neal Gabler With His Malefriend Matthew Kells in Times Square

Posted on January 30, 2012

Today, Politco posted an article by Neal Gabler titled “How Conservatives Lost Their Moral Compass.”

I couldn’t make it past the first paragraph because of a statement made by Gabler. He wrote:

Republicans must love to cheer. At their presidential primary debates last year, the audiences boisterously cheered candidates who raised their hands in support of waterboarding; Texas Gov. Rick Perry’s boast about how many prisoners he had sent to the death chamber; Rep. Ron Paul’s declaration that an uninsured 30-year-old man who needs medical care should be left to die; and Herman Cain’s gripe, “If you don’t have a job and you’re not rich, blame yourself.”

Most of his statements are true. The audience did cheer waterboarding, but why not mention the candidates like Ron Paul who did not raise their hands? Perry did boast about putting people do death and got cheers. Herman Cain did say that about the Occupy movement to applause.

But Ron Paul did not say an uninsured man should be left to die. That is a blatant lie by a sensationalist journalist looking to put all Republicans in the same boat. It is irresponsible and shows a lack of basic, fundamental research on Gabler’s part. I bet he didn’t even watch the debate. He probably is just regurgitating what he read somewhere else.

Wolf Blitzer posed a hypothetical question, where he said a healthy, 30 year-old chose not to have medical insurance and he got sick and had to be put in a coma for six months. He asked if he should be allowed to die.

Someone in the crowd yelled “Yes!” but Paul said “No.”

Paul did say that the person should have had a major medical policy, and people should take responsibility for themselves, but he never said the person should be allowed to die.

This was a “gotcha” question directed at Ron Paul because he’s a libertarian who believes in personal responsibility. It’s along the same line of questioning like “You want to get rid of the FDA, that means our food will all be contaminated” and “You want to end the drug wars so you want everyone to shoot up heroin.”

The person would not be allowed to die today or before Obamacare. He would get care, but would have to pay for it. He would probably rack up hundreds of thousands of dollars in medical bills and it would bankrupt him, but at least he would be alive.

I want to ask Gabler what the moral thing to do in that situation? Is the moral thing to care for the person for free? Should we forgive him for not having insurance? How is it more “moral” to reward the person for not taking personal responsibility for themselves? What if I chose not to have life insurance, and got killed in a car accident? Should my family still get the same payout as if I had life insurance?

This all just creates a moral hazard, where people know they can take risks and then the government will come to their rescue.

To me, it is more moral for everyone to take responsibility for themselves. It is not moral to bail out those who do not buy insurance while there are responsible people paying for theirs. If you don’t buy insurance, you are taking a risk. If you get sick, you will have to bear the financial burden. No one will leave you to die, but you might have a ton of debt after. That is the choice you made and you should live with it.

SRPS