The Republican Candidate’s debate last week with all of the emphasis on who is and will be the darling of the Tea Party graphically underscored the American value creep of the past four decades away from what used to be community responsibility. Rep. Paul, a physician, continues to rail against the “individual mandate” in the Health Reform legislation enacted by Congress and signed by Mr. Obama in 2009. He views it as a slap in the face of individual rights, because it curtails personal freedom by removing the personal freedom to choose to remain uninsured, whatever the consequences. Moderator, Wolf Blitzer, posed the question to him that if a healthy 30 year old chose not to obtain insurance but was suddenly confronted with an unexpected need for medical assistance, should be be denied treatment?
Rep. Paul at first tried to squirm off the hook by suggesting that that issue is the price of freedom of choice, but when pressed answered “no” while asserting that the community and doctors in particular have always responded to the wider needs of community in the past. Interestingly, there was a loud chorus of “yes” among his apparent supporters.
This would appear to be another manifestation of the “hyper-individualism” which author Bill McKibbben identifies in Deep Economy as having evolved in America at the expense of the wider sense of community.
Our commitment to this hyper-individualism allows us to tolerate, and even celebrate, inequality so gross that it’s almost as much farce as tragedy. The gap between the rich and everyone else is not a cause for concern, but for celebration; its beneficiaries are often hailed as our exemplars.
The mentality of Mr. Blitzer’s 30 year old is part of the problem, not the solution.
We’ve been well and truly sold on the idea of the individual; 55 percent of Americans under the age of thirty think they will end up being rich. And if you’re going to be rich, what do you need anyone else for? You can see the political results of Looking Out for Number One in the deterioration of all the institutions of our common life.
Ironically, the community values Mr. Paul reflects back on have been and continue to be largely destroyed by the incessant focus on individualism to the expense of the community.
DAN: I APPRECIATE YOUR RESPONSE, BUT WHERE IS THE EVIDENCE? IT IS PERHAPS SEXY TO PROVIDE AID TO AFRICA BUT THERE IS A LOT OF NEED HERE, BUT I DON'T SEE A LOT PHILANTHROPY SURFACING AROUND PROVIDING MEDICAL CARE TO POOR AMERICANS. GREG
Posted by: GREG PICHE' | 02/28/2012 at 06:22 PM
Don't be so pessimistic. The community would still help out a person in need. I always thought that was the reason Hillary Clinton always used the example of people getting sick and going bankrupt as a worst case scenario not people getting sick and being denied care. If people like Bill Gates and Warren Buffett are willing to spend their billions providing health care to Africa I think philanthropists would do the same here if it were neccessary.
Posted by: Dan | 02/28/2012 at 08:42 AM