EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Conservativism, Compassion, and Cruelty: A Response to David Brooks
Through a story of personal tragedy and the virtues of small-town life, voluntarism, and compassion, the New York Times' David Brooks has written a column that unwittingly exposes our nation's outrageous cruelty and callousness.
In his December 30 column, "Going Home Again," Brooks tells the story of Ruthie Leming, a school teacher and mother of three daughters in St. Francisville, Louisiana (population 1,765), who last year, at age 40, was diagnosed with a virulent form of cancer. Brooks understandably laments the tragedy and applauds Ruthie's community, which rallied around her and her family as her health deteriorated.
"There were cookouts to raise money for her medical care," Brooks reports. On April 10 last year -- officially "Ruthie Leming Day" -- "more than half the town went to a fund-raising concert" to help pay her medical expenses.
Brooks describes other ways that Leming's friends and neighbors came to her aid. At the fundraising concert, for example, someone brought a camper trailer "so Ruthie would have a place to rest and take oxygen." And when Leming died on September 15 of this year, "more than 1,000 people signed the guest book at the funeral." Brooks quotes Ruthie's husband Mike, an Iraq war veteran and a fireman, whose friends helped him get through the tragedy. "We're leaning, but we're leaning on each other," he said. Each year on Christmas eve, Ruthie and her mother would put candles on the graves in the local cemetery. But her mother couldn't bring herself to do it this year. When she drove by the cemetery, however, the candle flames were aglow; one of Ruthie and Mike's neighbors had taken it upon herself to maintain the tradition. "They will never know what this meant to me," the mother said.
Brooks learned about Ruthie Leming's story from his friend Rod Dreher, her brother, who writes and blogs for The American Conservative magazine "The outpouring -- an eruption, really -- of goodness and charity from the people of our town has been quite simply stunning," Dreher wrote. "The acts of aid and comfort have been ceaseless, often reducing our parents to tears of shock and awe."
After experiencing the warmth of the tight-knit community, Dreher decided to move from the Philadelphia area back to St. Francisville, where he grew up but hadn't lived since he left for college. "I thought, 'Even with all the sadness, there's no place else in the world I'd rather be."
Brooks uses this story as a parable about the virtues of what he calls "communitarian conservativism," which he contrasts with "free market" conservativism. Brooks favors both, but laments that the former version -- which he identifies as rooted in "small towns, traditions, and community" -- has gotten less attention.
The support that Ruthie Leming got from her friends and neighbors is indeed heartwarming. Of course, neighborliness and compassion are not unique to small towns. Nor are acts of cruelty and mean-spiritedness confined to big cities. There is plenty of crime, domestic violence, bigotry, and racial and economic tension in rural America.
But as Brooks extols his vision of compassionate conservatism, he casually and conveniently passes over the major outrage of Ruthie Leming's last year on earth -- the fact that her community had to hold fundraisers so her family could pay her medical bills. Brooks wasn't writing a column about health care policy, but implicit in his story is the notion that charity is an adequate substitute for government regulation or funding to meet basic needs.
In no other civilized nation would the Leming family face this double tragedy of debilitating illness and deep debt. Indeed, people in other well-off countries view America's lack of universal health care as cruel and barbaric, as indeed it is.
Charity is a good thing. People will always face tragic circumstances where compassion -- by individuals and by entire communities -- can relieve suffering. As Oliver Zunz points out in his new book, Philanthropy in America, voluntary giving -- by the very rich and by ordinary people -- can benefit society, especially when it is used to support the extra things that government cannot fully support, such as museums, symphonies, theater, and Little League. But conservatives romanticize charity (which former President George H. W. Bush called "a thousand points of light") when they view it as a substitute for government support, and argue that voluntary donations and good will gestures can adequately raise funds for K-12 education, feed the hungry, house the homeless, or pay for medicine, hospitals, and doctors' bills.
The real "community"-wide solution to our health care crisis is universal insurance, which can only be achieved with government setting the rules and providing subsidies.
Exorbitant medical bills are the biggest cause of personal bankruptcies and home foreclosure. In recent years, health care profits -- for drug and insurance companies, in particular -- have soared, while more and more Americans found themselves without any health insurance at all or (like Ruthie and Mike Leming) with inadequate insurance that didn't cover their medical bills. As part of their standard business model, insurance companies calculated which Americans were expensive to cover and refused to provide coverage to those people who had what they euphemistically called "pre-existing conditions."
Last year the nation took a step forward in addressing these problems with a health reform law that requires every American to have insurance, provides subsidies for those who can't afford it, and restricts insurance companies from discriminating against sick people. While America was debating health care reform, the insurance companies, big business, and the Republican Party spent tens of millions of dollars -- in TV ads, campaign contributions, and lobbying -- to oppose and weaken the bill. Now every Republican candidate for president has pledged to dismantle what they call "Obamacare" before it even has been fully implemented.
It is a great reflection on the generosity of the people of St. Francisville, and an awful reflection on American society, that at their time of greatest need, Ruthie and Mike Leming had to rely on donations to stave off financial ruin. In what kind of society do we allow teachers and firefighters to rely on charity to help pay their medical bills?
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
61 Comments so far
Show AllDreier wasn't writing a column about health insurance policy, but implicit in his article is the notion that private for-profit insurance is an adequate substitute for government regulation and funding to meet basic health care needs.
No. You are inferring that and you are Completely Wrong. He is critical of private insurance for its greed, for its extortionate rates, for its refusal to insure those more costly to care for - read the piece again.
No. You are missing the point and you are Completely Brainwashed. Obamacare isn't "a step forward" as Drier puts it. It's a subsidy for health insurance corporations forced upon on working class people, garnished with a few measures that would be laughable if proposed 50 years ago in any other industrialized country.
Americans have been stranded in a policy desert, desperate for help, and instead of fresh water get the legislative equivalent of someone peeing on their leg. It's now 2012. Obama supporters will pull out all the stops to portray him as something other than the disaster he's been: more war, greater inequality, and a few days ago this former constitutional law professor signed off on the final rubbling of the Bill of Rights. It's go time. #OccupyRevolution
I couldn't agree more with the last few sentences.
Actually, Redballoon you failed to understand what Brad B was saying. Maybe you should read BOTH the article again and Brad's response.
Peter Dreier is criticizing our current health care system but then bizarrely suggests that Obamacare -- which is the same privatized corporate health care system with some minor improvements -- will be the solution.
Dreier writes:
"Last year the nation took a step forward in addressing these problems with a health reform law that requires every American to have insurance, provides subsidies for those who can't afford it, and restricts insurance companies from discriminating against sick people."
Brad B. was simply asserting that Dreier was mistaken, and we actually needed a system of publicly funded universal health care to seriously address these problems.
In other words, Obamacare is not a step forward, it is a false step that will not solve fundamental problems-- and will only further enrich 'healthcare' corporations.
Now you may disagree with that but at least extend Brad B. the courtesy of not treating him like he's an idiot.
Sorry... it is not Brad... it is Brian B. My bad.
No problem.
[My comment just changed a few words in the final sentence of Dreier's ninth paragraph.]
As a former medical librarian I can attest that "Obamcare" is a sham for most Americans. It is definitely a step backward and will result in even more bankruptcies. I have asked its supporters that if it is such a windfall for the citizenry then why did the stocks for several HMOs go up when Barry the Liar signed it into law? Also, several of their CEOs received big bonuses. Yeah, that sounds like real healthcare "reform". This giveaway to corporate-dominated healthcare (instead of trying to bring about Medicare for all or at the very least the public option that he campaigned for) is just one of many reasons why I have come to hate Obama and his betrayals. Despite this, I am still told that I must vote for Obama again or our country will slip into fascism. I still wonder how it is that if George W. Bush had signed the NDAA there would have been outrage from the Left but when Obummer did it there is silence, hence the truth of the phrase - "It's not fascism when WE do it."
Yes, we actually need a system of public universal health care. But Dreier is saying that the health bill is merely A STEP forward... not that it is THE wonderful answer. Hil Clinton tried to get something done on health care spending back in the 'Nineties, but got TOTALLY reamed by the Right and by the Insurance lobby, and came out with a whole lotta nuthin'. And that was before the banksters put everyone and every government in a black hole of debt peonage.
But some here will not take anything but PERFECTION as an option. They forget that a vast number of powerful citizens and politicians on the Right are totally against them, and actually against ANY public regulation or payment for personal health care AT ALL. Most Republicans, including Ron Paul and the above-mentioned uber-Rightwing propagandist David Brooks, really really desire to foist paying and solving all these social problems onto private local CHARITY... SO THEY WON'T HAVE TO PAY FOR THOSE DAMN LOSERS down below.
And if it were true that charity, which has been around for thousands of years, would actually solve these massive problems of real people, then governments would have no existing reasons to help its citizens with Social Security, Medicare, student loans, et al. And the Defense Department could be run on local cakewalk and rummage sale proceeds.
Sure, sadly, the Capitalist system has made Government Aid to its own citizens a Cash Cow, because that is what Capitalism does, but that is not the fault of the intent, nor a reason to eliminate the help. It IS a reason to eliminate Capitalism, but try that one on for size. That is another story completely.
And I despise the 'Obamacare' label the RIGHT-WING pinned on the bill a la FRANK LUNTZ... true, it does have a memorable cadence to it, but why should the Left use it, too? It clouds the issue. It really could be called ROMNEYCARE, as that is exactly what it is, according to an author of both bills, and it has done SOME good in Massachusetts. Remember, you are forced to buy auto insurance for the accidents of others, you are forced to pay property tax to help schools you do not go to, and you would be forced to pay income tax to support a full-blown national health system, so you would still pay.
But right now, the status of the Left is so ragged, it seems the best it can do is get this half-assed health care compromise through, which pleases no one. Believe me, the Right will be Happy to eliminate it... and Medicare, and all forms of public health expenditures altogether, and just have you to go to your neighbors with a tin cup for help, a la David Brooks, or tell you to "buy your own damn health insurance, if you can, or just shut up and die!" Is that what the Left wants? Don't knock every pathetic little gain in socialism because it wasn't the whole enchilada. Or we should not be surprised that the Left loses ground in public opinion and politcal power... when it parrots the Right.
FVHorn, the term 'Obamacare' falls under the 'broken clocks' principle: Luntz should be hung for treason, but he's provided a fine umbrella term for liberal cowardice, Democratic delusion, and cash register legislation for corporations. And Obamacare is the linear descendant of Hillary's fraudulent go at national healthcare; she began that effort with an exclusive meet at posh Jackson Hole, WY, with all the major health care CEO's. Considering that meeting was a calculated career move, she got what she deserved.
The 'Left' (such as it is) parroting the Right is the basis for, and what produced, Obamacare. Turning criticism of this healthcare disaster on its ear as an accusation against critical thinking is positively Weimar. 2012 will prove whether we Americans have enough spine left (Oh, the puns!) to choose between fighting for human decency or sliding down into a neofeudalism that will make Dick Cheney look like Howard Zinn.
To summarize,
Vote for a democrat so that you can maintain your delusions because reality is a nasty SOB.
dont vote a democrat so a republican gets in
"djb"
If a democrat gets elected, it means the republican agenda will be implemented.
The democrats, the libertarians, and the republicans all support the same corporate agenda, no matter what any of them SAY they believe.
The republicans are blatant sadists, while the democrats and the libertarians are either lying masochists or sadists.
At this point, I'll be voting Green.
Or vote for Obama again and you'll get the best damn Republican Democrats can vote for.
Very politely said Mr. Dreier. Basically the bottom line is, David Brooks is a complete ass. That's not new information.
Brooks' schmaltz combined with the stupidity of a right-wing ideologue is always a delight to mock. It is one of the reasons not to take the NYT seriously. Screw Obamacare, it was a turd right from the start. Universal Medicare is the only rational way.
Agreed, and what does it say about PBS that they continue to have this shameless whore for corporate America as a "pundit" on their flagship news program?
Pretty sure the Lemmings are not Black or Muslim.
There would be no generosity shown to them by the townsfolk in Louisiana if the were.
The double standard of the conservatives is consistent. They shout stories like this from the top of roofs, while being the cause that they occur in the first place.
ZeroPointField -- Good guess... they are nice pleasant white people. They are also fundamentalist Christians naturally ... surprise, surprise.
Her death from cancer was all part of God's plan it turns out.
And you are absolutely right when it comes to so-called conservative ideology. The 'deep' thinkers such as Brooks extol a corporate system of rapacious greed that causes immense suffering for people.
Then they applaud the 'little people' for getting together and giving aid to the victims of the corporate health care system that is all about maximizing profits.
Thank god the Lemings (ironic name for sure) did not have to deal with evil government mandated health care....
"They shout stories like this from the top of roofs, while being the cause that they occur in the first place."
That was one pretty profound sentence right there...
Oops, deleted my double post...
Drier denigrates David Brooks for conveniently mentioning "...the fact that her community had to hold fundraisers so her family could pay her medical bills." He then goes on to praise Barry Obama for giving us the gift of "Obamacare" that was a back-room deal to sell out single-payer so that the private insurance companies would have millions of compulsory clients for their crappy product.
What is with these fake progressive that think all things Obama are wondrous when in fact they are at least as bad as the fascist Republicans? It is past time for Socialists to come out of hiding and stop allowing the most extreme right-wingers in Amerika to dictate how economic, political and social policy are framed.
this article captures more than the author would like to think, and i am happy to see the posters above picking up on it
amerika is the only industrialized country that has to endure this kind of desperate “fundraising”
its horrific that health depends on money. we spend the most money of all industrialized countries and yet we rank 37th in the world for health care quality
“Evidence that other countries perform better than the United States in ensuring the health of their populations is a sure prod to the reformist impulse. The World Health Report 2000, Health Systems: Improving Performance, ranked the U.S. health care system 37th in the world1 — a result that has been discussed frequently during the current debate on U.S. health care reform.”
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp0910064
not much bang for the buck, but ther execs of the healthcare industry are really having a blast
“Three of this year's top 10 earners (of all ceo's in the us) come from the healthcare industry. Top earner John Hammergren at McKesson, the world's largest healthcare firm, made $145,266,91 last year”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2011/dec/14/executive-pay-increase-america-ceos?CMP=twt_gu
same goes for the insurance industry, pharmaceutical industry and of course the wall street bankster terrorists
even justin beiber can figure it out: "Canada's the best country in the world. We go to the doctor and we don't need to worry about paying him, but here, your whole life, you're broke because of medical bills. My bodyguard's baby was premature, and now he has to pay for it. In Canada, if your baby's premature, he stays in the hospital as long as he needs to, and then you go home."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/02/16/justin-bieber-takes-on-evil-us-health-care_n_823942.html
obummer proved what a shill he was during the healthcare “debate” when he took single payer off the table without even blinking and then created a cash cow subsidy for the insurance industry – which the insurance industry wrote by the way – called obummer care
this kind of anti-human thinking pervades all aspects of amerikan life
I am hoping that in 2012 amerikans will turn the corner and start figuring out this scam – you know the one where the rich get everything and the rest of us – 99% - get nothing
Lastly, given the fact that david brooks wrote about them, I assume the family in question is white and given that their neighbors have some disposable income I assume they are white too
Imagine how this story would have turned out if the family was poor and black
Ps. I agree with baruchzed who posted above – david brooks is a complete asshole
David Brooks, 'compassionate conservatism', and the neocon propaganda machine would have you believe that all will be well, all will be right through reliance upon charity. We 99% are going broke through our 'charitable' contributions to the 1%. How can the 99% assist every person or family with devastating health situations? We are broke. Mr. Brooks and his ilk want our society to harken back to the old days of poor houses, servitude, bondage through so-called 'charity', humiliation of needing to seek 'charity', 'charity' determined by the so-called 'charitable' landowners, wealthy, the 1% deciding who deserves and who does not. For those of the 99% who believe a god exists then I propose Mr. Brooks is the devil incarnate. For those of the 99% who believe heaven exists then I suggest Mr. Brooks is hell's property manager. Being an agnostic, I choose to liken Mr. David Brooks to an amoeba and I will leave it at that. Charles Dickens wrote of the lives and times when and where the 99% relied on charity and that's exactly what Mr. 'Amoeba' wants for us now in the 21st century. Mr. Drier, in writing his commentary, was far too gracious and gentle in referencing Mr. Brooks and his foul idea of how America should work!
Dreier suggests that somehow a lack of health insurance is the problem. He thus signs on the the agenda of those who are the source of the problem. The Obama/Romney plan rewards insurance companies which will still feature employees whose income is dependent on denying care to people in need. Even if she had had insurance, Ruthie's friends might have been doing what they did just to cover shortfalls like extreme co-pays, denied care and the donut hole. It is totally significant that Dreier did not once mention single payer as the way to go. Ultimately this article is a plug for Obama at the expense of people in need.
"The real "community"-wide solution to our health care crisis is universal insurance, which can only be achieved with government setting the rules and providing subsidies."
i think this shows he is thinking along same lines as you
No, I don't think so. If he had used the term "universal health care," I might agree with you. Insurance companies insert the profit motive into health care; it is a lethal injection.
I agree with your comment. Health insurance and health care are two different entities. I point this out to people all the time, whenever a discussion about health insurance arises in conversations. Health insurance denotes profits for corporations. Health care should be a universal human right. Obamacare is NOT health care -- again, it's a shift of wealth from "we the people" to corporations.
"In no other civilized nation would the Leming family face this double tragedy of debilitating illness and deep debt. Indeed, people in other well-off countries view America's lack of universal health care as cruel and barbaric, as indeed it is." -- Peter Drier
When I have visited and taken part in actions at OWS/Liberty Square in NYC, I have had the opportunity to speak with people from quite a number of other countries, and they just can't wrap their heads around the fact that U.S. elected officials don't represent us, "we the people."
Peter Drier's statement in the article reminded me of a couple of lengthy conversations I had with two different men from Germany, both of whom stated that U.S. "health insurance" programs are an abomination, and don't address the reality of health care.
Great aticle. I want Single Payor for all ....no strings attached none of this or that.
Healthcare for all....period. Just one swtich to turn.....MEDICARE for all. It does not take rocket science to accomplish this. We are all equal according to the our Consititution.
yes we must have community outpouring and charity and neighborly outpouring
all so we can allow the wall street backed healthcare corporations and pharmaceutical industry and "extended care" corporations, steal almost the entire healthcare dollar
dont complain about the corporate healthcare scam
just have bake sales for your sick neighbors
that'll do it
If modern conservatism was indeed compassionate, why would they have to call it "compassionate conservatism"? It's like going to a grocery store and deciding between something labeled "american cheese" and onother labeled "pasturized process reduced fat american cheese food product"... Which one is closer to real food?..... Sounds like one of Frank Luntz's phrases..
""Brooks uses this story as a parable about the virtues of what he calls "communitarian conservativism," which he contrasts with "free market" conservativism. Brooks favors both, but laments that the former version -- which he identifies as rooted in "small towns, traditions, and community" -- has gotten less attention."""
what brooks is really supporting:
that the corporations can keep all those billions and trillions intended to pay for healthcare, that they collect in premiums
and your neighbors can come together and pay your bills, and you can pay theirs
pay no attention to the trillions behind the curtain
Dr. Dreier is right on in his analysis of the Republican position on health care: let charity take care of it. This shallow thinking, or perhaps better, meanness, is still fooling too many Americans. In other nations where health care is a right rather than a privilege, the citizens there can't believe how we seemingly allow tens of thousands of people to die yearly for lack of health care insurance and tens of thousands to go bankrupt because of medical costs. Repeal the Health Care Act and replace it with what? Pig roasts and charity concerts? What a country!
This article really points out the dismal state of health care in the USA.
She was a teacher and the husband was a firefighter - if those 2 don't have access to adequate care then we are all truly fucked.
And frankly I'm a non-violent guy who hasn't been in a fight since 4th grade but I'd have a hard time not throwing Brooks in front of a moving truck if I had the chance.
That guy is a waste of good air.
Neither of the two right wing parties has proposed a civilized system of universal health care which might explain why that even as Ohio was overwhelming;y rebuking the right wing governor they were also voting massively against Obama's phealth care reform which subsidizes the failed for-profit system.
Missing is an accurate assessment of how much the Leming family would actually have had to pay if Obamacare was operational, which renders this essay no better than Brooks's. Both writers make the horrendous mistake of calling the USA a "civilized" country, while implying there are indeed civilized countries on the planet, which is also false. The only potentailly civilized people in this essay are the citizens engaged against the Barbarity of the US Empire, although they are unlikely to see themselves and their actions in that light given how much they've been indoctrinated and propagandized.
For the record the USA is # 50 in Life Expectancy by country in the CIA Factbook for 2011.
Then consider that the USA spends almost twice as much on Health Care as the rest of the world does for providing care to about 60% of it's citizens.
So this means we basically spend 3 to 4 times on health care per person as the rest of the world does.
All in order to be # 50! Exceptional!
What a success!
Dreier sez: "Brooks uses this story as a parable about the virtues of what he calls "communitarian conservativism ..."
***
A community pooling its resources to benefit its most needy members? There's another term that might be applied to that behavior, though it would make Brooks' head explode.
Great article, Peter. I've always viewed Brooks as a slimeball, using words to sugar-coat [conservative, predominantly white, male] views that are outdated in this day and age. In a more democratic country, folks wouldn't have to rely upon charity for health care (BTW, charity is often tied to religious organizations or communities with "traditional values" that represent a particular ethnic or racial group). Charities today are being touted by conservatives in favor of government support that *should* be there in the first place. How backwards can the views of Brooks get?
This view is the first cousin to the newest meme foisted by the 1% upon the sleepy masses: "50% of Americans don't live in poverty. COMPARED TO THE REST OF THE WORLD, they lead lives of luxury.
Yeah, I've heard that meme before from a bunch of my "conservative" acquaintances. Sad.
Rural environments often are able to maintain the 'space' needed for people to maintain their grace and generosity. In modern urban environments, this space is lacking and people become insular and ungracious (often): especially in the inner city. Large structures, like the modern corporation, belittle individuals: cubicle life often leads to petty behavior (and indeed is probably designed that way): as parodied in the movie 'Office Space' and TV show 'The Office' (and many others). In modern corporations, only people willing to work 60hrs+ get to call themselves 'adults', everyone else is made to feel pre-adolescent. While this probably works for the corporation, or the city, it produces individuals who are petty, insular, and ungracious. Finally, I noticed that the nearest Walmart to this town is about 20 miles away: the modern shopping experience is like corporate-cubicle-life, but with a monster shopping cart instead. St Francisville may have small business owners still intact, bringing it a more generous, community-oriented downtown.
Conservatives often vocally pine for rural life, feeling it exemplifies the 'bootstraps capitalism' they prefer. But people live in cities because that's where the jobs are, not because they like cigarette butts and open sewers. Those jobs come from VERY big, impersonal corporations, and it doesn't take long to realize that the much needed labor solution to BIG business... is BIG labor (aka unions). Hence, AFTER they move to the city to take a big-city job, is when people turn liberal. If we could all live in St Francisville, we could all afford to drink from the 'communitarian conservative' elixir, but that hasn't been true for 100 years. Its capitalism that demanded we live in hovels and work in cubicles, the same capitalism that conservatives love so much. And places like St Francisville would be even MORE depopulated if places like Los Angeles and Newark didn't repeated put more money into rural America, via the federal government, than they get back in taxes, year after year after year. Hence, PART of the generosity that Brooks observes in St Francisville was taken from Los Angeles, Houston, and other big cities by the federal government.
To be clear, the greatest sense of community and neighborliness I've ever experienced was when I lived in an urban neighborhood. And virtually all the businesses in this neighborhood were small family businesses. And, because this was a walkable community had a lively culture on it sidewalks and small parks, and most people relied on public transit, (which entails waiting at bus stops), the pace of life was actually slower.
The alienation you described is more a trait of suburban areas, not urban areas.
I can tell you a similar story about a bankrupted couple and cancer treatment paid for by "commutarian conservatism." "How did it feel to be the object of that charity?" I asked. "It felt terrible." she answered. "I felt like I was a burden on everyone, I felt like it would be easier for everyone if I just died." To make a person in such need an object of charity is not a sign of our moral advancement as a society because in an advanced and compassionate culture that person would receive medical care as a right. Rather to have to resort to charity and the determination of the charity givers as to who is able to give what amount, who is worthy to receive the gift, to give only to those within our little circle--all this is a sign of how morally primitive, capricious and cruel our society is even for those who receive the gift and for those who are not so fortunate the alternative is neglect and death.. If health care is a human right one should not have to beg for it it and conversely all of us as citizens should be obliged by taxes to pay for it. Do you think David Brooks and his ilk would sanction that?
>>>> Do you think David Brooks and his ilk would sanction that?
Sanction is a confusing word because it has two meanings that are almost opposite: approving or penalizing. But I take your point about Brooks (first meaning).
"The real "community"-wide solution to our health care crisis is universal insurance, which can only be achieved with government setting the rules and providing subsidies."
Heavens no! That's Socialism! And I'd rather see you and your entire family die than go along with such a Socialist/Communist plan.
~hark, hark, hark!~
And last year, the nation did no take a step forward in addressing these problems with a health reform law that requires every American to have insurance, provides subsidies for those who can't afford it, and restricts insurance companies from discriminating against sick people. But rather, last year Obama gave the sickcare companies the biggest sell out since the bail out of the banksters in 2008. Penalizing people and forcing them to buy crap they can't afford is no solution to the problem, even if it pleases the corporate masters and enriches them beyond their wildest dreams.
How do we, as a society, go about restoring basic, fundamental moral principles? When did it all go so wrong? Why don't people just do what is RIGHT?
It really isn't that difficult, yet the obvious fact is that obscene greed, pathological lying, cheating, stealing, whoring, thieving...and the unbelievably blatant hypocrisy is the norm, at least with nearly every politician, top echelons of the corporations, and lobbyists for special (corporate) interests. There seems that there are no boundaries at all with these people; they do not even live among any of us, really; further, I don't think they care at all. About any one or anything but themselves, their own self interests and mind-boggling covetousness, as if to say, "I have mine and I want it all to myself." Like a two year-old child who has never been taught to share. Are we being duped by a bunch of sociopaths? Because these people display absolutely no conscience at all.
So when did it start going so wrong? I do believe that it did start under Ronald Reagan and his "greed is good" mentality. And with all the reckless deregulation of every industry: no rules to follow, no legal obligations to honor, no recourse for anyone if they get trampled--and we are ALL getting trampled (Actually, I feel as if I am being RAPED REPEATEDLY IN BROAD DAYLIGHT), and left to run amok by, really, a bunch of greedy, stingy, totally AMORAL people who sold their souls to the DEVIL itself!!. We can all see the results (Just LOOK AROUND YOU).
Conclusion: People cannot and SHALL NOT be trusted; Trusted especially to be good samaritans on good faith; It is pretty clear to me that we, as a nation, must FORCE them to follow and obey some basic rules of conscience. These people, and I directly blame every last rotten one of them, they are so out of touch and out of control in every conceivable way, it has become nothing but a game to these people: the power, the money, the fame and whatever else they are constantly and pitifully striving to attain. But there is no foundation for these people; no scruples, no sense of basic decency, no moral compass, no knowledge or awareness...of anything really, except their own insane and insatiable desires. There is absolutely nothing good about them and they offer society nothing.
All of you lefty's complaining about the Health Care Bill that was passed and signed by Obama should take a nice, long look at yourselves. The reason the bill was so watered down and crappy is because The Tea Party kicked our ass at the congressional Town Hall meetings during the debate on this bill. They outnumbered us, outmanoeuvred us and even if they were funded by the Koch Bros., so what? Where were the leftists marching in the streets to demand health care for all Americans? We were barely heard because we sat on our butts! I was out there with 25 others at my Senators office. Not much of a showing. Sad. Don't blame Obama, when you didn't back him up!
Back him up? Really? The truth is that Obama made a backroom deal with the health care (sic) industry long before the bill came to a vote. Face it. Your hero Barry Obama sold your ass down the river.
frisbeeredcat,
You are wrong? President Obama does not get a free pass on this. Groups advocating single payer (universal) solutions were not even part of the discussions leading up to the so-called health reform bill. They were excluded. Who excluded them?
Thomas Gilbert-