Insurance and Freedom

No, the real policy action at this point is in the states, where the question is, How many Americans will be denied essential health care in the name of freedom?

I’m referring, of course, to the question of how many Republican governors will reject the Medicaid expansion that is a key part of Obamacare. What does that have to do with freedom? In reality, nothing. But when it comes to politics, it’s a different story.

It goes without saying that Republicans oppose any expansion of programs that help the less fortunate — along with tax cuts for the wealthy, such opposition is pretty much what defines modern conservatism. But they seem to be having more trouble than in the past defending their opposition without simply coming across as big meanies.

Specifically, the time-honored practice of attacking beneficiaries of government programs as undeserving malingerers doesn’t play the way it used to. When Ronald Reagan spoke about welfare queens driving Cadillacs, it resonated with many voters. When Mitt Romney was caught on tape sneering at the 47 percent, not so much.

There is, however, an alternative. From the enthusiastic reception American conservatives gave Friedrich Hayek’s “Road to Serfdom,” to Reagan, to the governors now standing in the way of Medicaid expansion, the U.S. right has sought to portray its position not as a matter of comforting the comfortable while afflicting the afflicted, but as a courageous defense of freedom.

Conservatives love, for example, to quote from a stirring speech Reagan gave in 1961, in which he warned of a grim future unless patriots took a stand. (Liz Cheney used it in a Wall Street Journal op-ed article just a few days ago.) “If you and I don’t do this,” Reagan declared, “then you and I may well spend our sunset years telling our children and our children’s children what it once was like in America when men were free.” What you might not guess from the lofty language is that “this” — the heroic act Reagan was calling on his listeners to perform — was a concerted effort to block the enactment of Medicare.

These days, conservatives make very similar arguments against Obamacare. For example, Senator Ron Johnson of Wisconsin has called it the “greatest assault on freedom in our lifetime.” And this kind of rhetoric matters, because when it comes to the main obstacle now remaining to more or less universal health coverage — the reluctance of Republican governors to allow the Medicaid expansion that is a key part of reform — it’s pretty much all the right has.

As I’ve already suggested, the old trick of blaming the needy for their need doesn’t seem to play the way it used to, and especially not on health care: perhaps because the experience of losing insurance is so common, Medicaid enjoys remarkably strong public support. And now that health reform is the law of the land, the economic and fiscal case for individual states to accept Medicaid expansion is overwhelming. That’s why business interests strongly support expansion just about everywhere — even in Texas. But such practical concerns can be set aside if you can successfully argue that insurance is slavery.

Of course, it isn’t. In fact, it’s hard to think of a proposition that has been more thoroughly refuted by history than the notion that social insurance undermines a free society. Almost 70 years have passed since Friedrich Hayek predicted (or at any rate was understood by his admirers to predict) that Britain’s welfare state would put the nation on the slippery slope to Stalinism; 46 years have passed since Medicare went into effect; as far as most of us can tell, freedom hasn’t died on either side of the Atlantic.

In fact, the real, lived experience of Obamacare is likely to be one of significantly increased individual freedom. For all our talk of being the land of liberty, those holding one of the dwindling number of jobs that carry decent health benefits often feel anything but free, knowing that if they leave or lose their job, for whatever reason, they may not be able to regain the coverage they need. Over time, as people come to realize that affordable coverage is now guaranteed, it will have a powerful liberating effect.

But what we still don’t know is how many Americans will be denied that kind of liberation — a denial all the crueler because it will be imposed in the name of freedom.

View the original article here

Gay rights in U.S. ultimately about freedom

(PNI) Regarding "Churches split over gay rights" (Valley & State, Tuesday):

Republic reporter Michael Clancy did a good job showing there are conscientious Christians on all sides of this discussion. But we need to recognize that there are two issues here, and we must separate them.

The first is the moral legitimacy of the gay lifestyle and the second is the issue of gay rights -- the right of people to their own beliefs on morality as long as they don't infringe on the rights of others.

There are good Christians on both sides of the first issue. But if you believe in the Golden Rule, all Christians should be for gay rights in the second issue. The proposal being considered by the Boy Scouts is an example of a good solution -- allow the sponsoring organization of a troop to apply its own moral code to its own troop.

Freedom is the bottom line in this country. Sometimes, it's a balancing act.

--Doug Metzger, Phoenix

Megacity editorial weak

Regarding "Phoenix bashed in LA Times: Coast megacity a water vacuum":

The Arizona Republic editorial board, in its reply to an op-ed I wrote that was published in the Los Angeles Times on March 14, "Phoenix's too hot future," responds first by dismissing the author with a specious comparison (me to Edward Abbey) and second by pointing its finger at Los Angeles, whose habits and behavior, it says, are worse than Phoenix's.

That may be, but the diversion of attention leaves the core issue -- the exposure of Phoenix to a hotter and drier future -- completely unaddressed.

The Valley of the Sun indeed lies vulnerably in the crosshairs of climate change, which is the point of the op-ed and of the longer essay (at TomDispatch.com) from which it was drawn. If The Arizona Republic were to dig deeply into that subject, it would be a public service.

--William deBuys,

Chamisal, N.M.

No al-Qaida links in Iraq

Regarding "U.S. military did its job in Iraq" (Opinions, Sunday):

The Republic editorial board said our military "took the fight to the home of the al-Qaida terrorists and their sympathizers." I disagree.

On April 29, 2007, a former director of Central Intelligence, George Tenet, said on "60 Minutes": "We could never verify that there was any Iraqi authority, direction and control complicity with al-Qaida for 9/11 or any operational act against America, period."

Iraq, in fact, neutralized any threat to us from Iran. I wouldn't be surprised if President George W. Bush, the most incompetent and pathetic president the country ever had, received a thank-you note from the Iranians for handing Iraq over to them.

--Roger Vallie, Goodyear

Universal infringements

Universal background checks. Sounds great, sounds reasonable, right? And such a noble goal.

But how would we feel if police started stopping every driver on the road to check for violations -- let's call it "universal DUI checks." Or maybe "universal tax audits." Starts to sound a little invasive.

Here's the problem: Universal background checks will require that I go through a federal firearms licensee to hand down a gun to my children or sell it to a friend. The only way to know whether that happened -- to enforce the law -- is to register and track every gun, including documenting the 100million legal guns in law-abiding owners' hands today.

It is already illegal to sell a gun to a prohibited possessor. Universal background checks would only add one more unenforceable law to the pile that we already don't enforce. The other problem is that criminals don't get guns that way, so these checks do nothing to take guns out of the hands of criminals or crazies.

--Mike Pflueger,

Scottsdale

I have job touted in letter

Just what is the secure private-sector job with health insurance that a letter writer refers to ("Caring about Americans," Friday)? Moreover, where is it? Because I want it.

Wait a minute. I already have it.

Like a growing number of Americans, by choice or necessity, I am self-employed. Have been for 28 years. I have health insurance because I pay for it. All of it. And until my wife died, it cost more than my mortgage.

My payroll taxes for Social Security are nearly double what "employed" folks pay. I have paid vacation time, as long as I pay for it. I can never apply for unemployment even if I have zero work. If I want a luxury, like a telephone line, I get to pay the business rate, which is twice the personal rate, even though I make fewer calls than a typical teenager.

But, like the rest of you, I pay all the sales taxes, utility taxes, room taxes and all the other hidden taxes the federal government never talks about.

So, where is that job again? I sure would like to have it. Except at 60, I am probably too old and experienced to get it.

--John Green,Scottsdale

Ethnic studies important

Regarding "The real loss is local control" (Editorial, March 12):

You are wrong to brand Tucson ethnic-studies instructors "zealots" and blame them for "indoctrination." The real "wreckage" is caused by Arizona Attorney General Tom Horne and others who are afraid of knowledge.

I am a Caucasian, retired teacher who has taught both ethnic studies and U.S. history. Ethnic studies is a class that all students should take because U.S. history is taught from the vantage point of the conquerors. Ethnic studies offers the opportunity to learn the other side of the story -- America's history from the viewpoint of the conquered, displaced and subjugated.

Everyone, including Mr. Horne, should learn that the expansion of America was shaped by the racist ideology of "manifest destiny" and the desire to expand slavery to "free" Mexico. The Mexican-American War was opposed by many, including Abraham Lincoln and Ulysses S. Grant. Grant called it "one of the most unjust (wars) ever waged by a stronger against a weaker nation." Or, the glorified Texas Rangers often resorted to ruthless, summary executions, torture and intimidation, usually against Indians and Mexicans.

Mr. Horne and others who want to deny students the right to learn all sides of our history would also benefit from this class.

--Steve Carl, Chandler

What GOP needs to do

Much has been written lately concerning the need for change in the Republican Party.

The GOP does not have to change its basic beliefs of low taxes and smaller government. It just has to change the attitude of half of the voters from: "What can the country do for me?" to "What can I do to make the country better?"

--James P. Giangobbe,

Litchfield Park

Copyright 2012 The Arizona Republic|azcentral.com. All rights reserved.For more information about reprints & permissions, visit our FAQ's. To report corrections and clarifications, contact Standards Editor Brent Jones. For publication consideration in the newspaper, send comments to letters@usatoday.com. Include name, phone number, city and state for verification. To view our corrections, go to corrections.usatoday.com.

Posted

View the original article here

Thaddeus McCotter’s presidential slogan: ‘Seize Freedom!’ (Daily Caller)

We don’t know much yet about how Michigan Rep. Thaddeus McCotter will position himself in the already crowded GOP presidential race.

But his campaign website, McCotter2012.com, hints at the branding-to-come of his campaign with the slogan: “Your American Dream is endangered. Seize Freedom.” The site went live Friday. (Rubio finds creative way to answer constituent mail)

McCotter plans to announce a presidential bid Saturday. In an interview with The Daily Caller last week, he said: “If I run, I would be in to win.”

His website lists five core principles of his candidacy, including the notions that:

—Our liberty is from God not the government
—Our sovereignty is in our souls not the soul
—Our security is from strength not surrender
—Out prosperity is from the private sector not the public sector
—Our truths are self-evident not relative

Read more stories from The Daily Caller

Thaddeus McCotter's presidential slogan: 'Seize Freedom!'

TheDC Morning: Tim Geithner finds job too taxing?

Is Obama ignoring signs that Gaddafi is desperate to make a deal to leave Libya?

GoTopless movement aims to shed gender inequality, one shirt at a time

As DOJ reviews legality of merger, it's AT&T versus Sprint

View the original article here