Joe Carter Is Wrong


In response to Roberto's post:

Ayn Rand? I guess. Haven't read her. Atlas Shrugged is just too long. But what I know of Ayn Rand -- she at whose feet Alan "Inflation Will Kill Us All!!" Greenspan prostrated himself -- and her philosophy doesn't strike me as animating the larger, modern conservative movement. It's not that we are Social Darwinists (whatever that means this week) who believe in "come what may" to the "littles." You just don't see that. It's more a matter of thresholds and extents than libertarian absolutism. That's why the readership of Reason magazine is so small.

As far as health care is concerned, the Right has already made that "good faith effort" to ensure that the little man is covered. Years ago. It's the requirement that hospitals must to provide emergency care to all, regardless of ability to pay.  With the subsequent cost of the unpaid expenses then being distributed to all other hospital patients.

That's the system. It works. The government isn't involved. There's no rationing.

"Good faith effort" accomplished. 

What isn't attractive is any kind of massive entitlement that mixes increased government control over our lives with economy-crushing deficits into Goodbye Superpower soup. That particular recipe is starting to lose its flavor even in Western Europe where it originated.

At any rate, "The Right" has already been down that road -- in the last Administration -- via the fiscally atrocious Prescription Drug Entitlement. That was "good faith" all right. "Good faith" but stupid. But, contrary to Joe Carter's comment, the good faith was there. Of course, there's no credit for "good faith" given for that ... it doesn't fit his story.  Which is just fine, as far as I'm concerned, because some day we're going to be cursing our lunacy in allowing our leadership to vote that monstrosity in, and I'd just as soon it not be tied to "The Right."

But, whatever, the grief here is that modern Christian conservatives are lining up behind Rand. The problem with this claim is that they aren't.

As for the ultimate complaint that they are reliant upon personalities rather than ideas, this is an "eye of the beholder" matter.  Each philosophy has its popular heroes and those popular heroes are popular because they broadcast the philosophy with a talent and audience lacked by your average Joe. Average Joe Righty listens to Limbaugh. Average Joe Lefty listens to Air America. Intellectual Guy Righty reads books. Intellectual Guy Lefty reads books. Yet somehow the stereotype survives that the Left is a "smarter" movement than the Right. That's just ignorant and stupid. It's repeated (though not supported with evidence) in Joe Carter's piece, and that right there is a tip off to the bias in this piece.

I love First Things. But Joe Carter is wrong.

Comments:

magdanny, you wrote: "Hospitals are only required to treat dying patients". I'd respectfully suggest that you learn more about the legal mandate for safety-net hospital emergency departments. I'd also suggest you ask some citizens of Britain about the difference between public and private health insurance, why the private option arose, and how helpful and caring the public option really is.
I have no comment on the larger debate about Rand or good faith, but the idea that mandatory hospital care takes care of Health needs is ludicrous, as well as false. Hospitals are only required to treat dying patients, which does nothing for those with long-term illnesses like diabetes, which, left untreated, affects the health of millions of Americans and lead to many premature deaths. The economics are all wrong here too, as the English and Germans, for example, pay much less for their health care, get better care, and cover everyone. If that's what government intervention is, I prefer it to corporate intervention, where they continually jack up the price of getting our health care and lower our standard of living.




BreakPoint Blog

Banner