CNN host Wolf Blitzer asked Paul whether he was prepared to let an uninsured 30-year-old with cancer die, just because that 30-year-old could not afford the treatments. Paul gave a long, convoluted answer about responsibility. But a handful of audience members were less ambivalent. They blurted out “yes”—as in, yes, they would let the 30-year-old die.
The writer thinks this shows that Tea Party advocates are heartless. It does not.
One, the scenario is not being accurately described. The question wasn't whether someone who couldn't afford insurance should be treated. No, it was about personal responsibility and what society should do when a person fails in that personal responsibility. Even this equally biased coverage manages to convey that:
Texas Rep. Ron Paul, a doctor, was asked a hypothetical question by CNN host Wolf Blitzer about how society should respond if a healthy 30-year-old man who decided against buying health insurance suddenly goes into a coma and requires intensive care for six months. Paul--a fierce limited-government advocate-- said it shouldn't be the government's responsibility. "That's what freedom is all about, taking your own risks," Paul said and was drowned out by audience applause as he added, "this whole idea that you have to prepare to take care of everybody …" [emphasis added]
"Are you saying that society should just let him die?" Blitzer pressed Paul. And that's when the audience got involved.
Several loud cheers of "yeah!" followed by laughter could be heard in the Expo Hall at the Florida State Fairgrounds in response to Blitzer's question.
Look, I'm no Ron Paul fan. Good grief, I could actually pull the lever for President Obama if he is the Republican candidate. But I think a number of motives were in play here that have nothing to do with wishing death on someone.
First, the idea that a person who chooses not to buy insurance should get a free ride is simply an example of what "compassion" seems to require from our wallets. Don't buy flood insurance? Get government aid to rebuild just like your insurance-buying neighbor. Build in a hurricane zone that has a lovely ocean view when the winds aren't hitting force 5 levels? No worries! The government will pay to rebuild your lovely home from tax revenues sent in by inland Americans with a view of a landfill. Bought too much home or just decide that it isn't convenient to pay your mortgage? Government money should flow while those who bought small or simply paid what they owed get to wonder why they are being screwed for playing by the rules. This hypothetical insurance question was part of that outrage, I think.
I suspect the laughter was part of the sheer joy of standing up for personal responsibility right in the big government's lair (CNN) where "compassion" that "saves even one life" is worth whatever price tag the compassionate can come up with and where contrary ideas are never raised because they are simply out of bounds of polite company. The idea that we should help the truly needy who have no place to turn has evolved into the idea that the government should make it possible to never be faced with the decision to buy health insurance or get that new car you had your eye on or go on an expensive vacation. And even if we had a society where it was normal to make the good choice, I doubt that Tea Party members would balk at saving the life of even the rare irresponsible. But when everyone does it, we can't go on spending at that rate. We can't.
And the fact is, we aren't anywhere near where we would fail to pay for someone's medical care. People aren't turned away from medical care because they can't afford it. Well, they aren't until Obamacare kicks in and their treatment gets run over in an effort to bend the cost curves down if that treatment is deemed too expensive or not cost effective (I mean, really, expensive cancer treatment for one man when you could provide vitamin supplements to 10,000 children for a year with the same price tag?).
You put that dying man in front of that Tea Party audience, and I bet donations would flow. Put that same man's file in front of some liberal-led board that has to authorize a government payment for his check, and the odds are good that "society" would let him die.
Nobody should be left to die. Not in a just society. But nobody should voluntarily put society in the position of making that choice with other people's money. And no society should encourage people to do that. Not in a just society, anyway.
UPDATE: You think responsibility can't die? Guess again (tip to Instapundit). Reach a tipping point and the responsible stop feeling responsible--they feel like suckers.
