...Republican of Georgia, on July 7 added an amendment to the health care bill being written by the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee that would allow people to use a new long-term care benefit "to obtain assistance in formulating their own living will and durable power of attorney."
A little over a month later, on August 10, in an interview with The Washington Post, Mr. Isakson said, "I just had a phone call where someone said Sarah Palin's Web site had talked about the House bill having death panels on it where people would be euthanized. How someone could take an end of life directive or a living will as that is nuts. You're putting the authority in the individual rather than the government. I don't know how that got so mixed up."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
"You're putting the authority in the individual rather than the government. I don't know how that got so mixed up."
I'm a little mixed up about why I would need a government program to assist me in deciding whether I need a living will or an end of life directive. I already have the authority so why should they take your money to hire someone to tell me about it? I think you can use your money more wisely on things you need/desire than paying a government employee to give me such information.
As I understand the new benefit--and correct me if I'm wrong--my 90-year-old mother could pick up the phone and call HER doctor (not some government employee) and make an appointment to discuss "end of life" issues with him and Medicare would pay for that service once every five years. It would be entirely voluntary on her part. Where's the problem?
Then why not just add a new "benefit" to Medicare so your Mom can get that service paid for by someone else? Why do we need a new 1016 page law that changes everything else as well?
The problem is; why should someone else pay for your Mom's consultation if she has a $10 million estate?
What I would really like to delve into is your history as a long term libertarian before you became a liberal. That would be a better discussion than debating the details of who should pay for services provided by government programs with money taken from taxpayers.
The real discussion is about concepts and ideas, not details of large complicated omnibus government programs.
I think those are very fair questions. And you're right; we're debating the minutiae rather than the larger philosophical questions.(As an aside, Time magazine just reported that Chuck Grassley voted for an "end of life" provision for Medicare in 2003. I have a recent post about it.)
I'd be happy to discuss my personal evolution from Libertarian (with a capital "L") to Whatever-It-Is-I-Am-Now. It was a long journey, however, and began with my reading "The Conscience of a Conservative" by Barry Goldwater in high school. My first vote ever was for Ronald Reagan in the 1976 Minnesota caucus and my most recent one was for Obama in 2008. Sometimes even I have to shake my head at the metamorphosis.
As I said, it's been a long journey and difficult to sum up in the comments section. I once heard it said that the definition of a neoconservative was a liberal who had been mugged by reality. I feel like I'm a libertarian who has been shown the benefits of government. It began with my unexpectedly good experience with the public schools in my town to the most recent example of the Fed and Treasury averting another Great Depression. Over the years I've decided that government does have a legitimate role to play.
I know this is a very shorthand explanation but the topic is vast. It's hard to sum it all up succinctly. I wonder if there would be one or two questions I could tackle piecemeal. I've tried to address the topic before on this blog and I'll try some more.
I think the problem may lay in the definition of the words. I find that is often the case.
Some of the comments found in your profile and even in the post you just made to me suggest that your definition of libertarianism is flawed. Thus, the disconnect. Of course you may not agree with my definition, but I am prepared to explain mine if you wish as we go along and cite my sources as well.
Perhaps we should begin by exploring the verbiage in your profile which suggests that the freedom philosophy (classical liberalism, libertarianism) is somehow a philosophy which embraces or even allows for the concept of utopia. In fact, nothing could be more removed from the actual philosophy.
When you used that term it immediately raised a caution flag for me because as almost any true libertarian who has been actively engaged in the movement or the study of it can tell you that one of the most popular slogans associated with the ideology is, "Utopia is not an Option".
As to "NeoConservatism", I cannot comment on that particular sub-species because it has nothing whatsoever to do with libertarianism. I will allow that on an occasional issue, all sorts of other ideologies agree with libertarians, including some issues which are embraced by so called modern-day liberals. But there is really no connection to either movement of any importance.
Your statement that "I feel like I'm a libertarian who has been shown the benefits of government" is also troubling in that the implication is that libertarians do not recognize the benefits of government. That of course is untrue and it an often used as an attack on the philosophy used by many, on both the left and the right, to attempt to marginalize libertarians as (nod nod wink wink) anarchists. Such implications are met with disdain in informed circles. (Please note that I am not accusing you of employing such tactics intentionally or even unintentially.
I also disagree that the government has saved us from a depression, but that is a different topic for a different time.
In concluding this initial message, I will say that libertarians may differ with the left and right on the proper role of government in a free society, but we regognise many benefits of goverment even if they are not the ones you might embrace. I look forward to as many exchanges as necessary if I can be helpful to you in defining yourself more properly than "Whatever-it-is-that-I-am_now". Thanks for responding.
I'm aware that neocons don't necessarily intersect with libertarians. I was just using that old saying to draw a comparison with my own transformation.
I'm also aware of the difference between a libertarian and an anarchist. I assume you believe that government has a proper role to play in national defense, maintaining police and fire departments, courts, etc. So I guess what I would ask is, what about public education, social security, and Medicare? Where exactly would you draw the line? There was a time when I could argue for the privatization of all of the above. Now I'm not so sure. Could you really imagine privatizing public education, social security, and dismantling Medicare? Sounds politically impossible and as we all know, politics is the art of the possible. And that is what I mean by the libertarian world that used to exist in my head and the real world that existed outside of it.
Also, how would you raise revenue in a libertarian society? You must believe in at least a minimum of government.
Post a Comment