Paul Krugman, winner of a Nobel Prize in economics and writer of the popular New York Times blog “Conscience of a Liberal,” during a speech was asked about how to curb our national debt:
[W]e’re also going to do, really, we’re going to have to make decisions about health care, not pay for health care that has no demonstrated medical benefits. So you know the snarky version I use, which is, I shouldn’t even say because it will get me in trouble, is death panels and sales taxes is how we do this.”
Certainly Krugman doesn’t speak for anyone but himself, but it’s revealing that a liberal is now seriously suggesting the same policy that conservatives warned was coming. For this warning, conservatives roundly received ridicule: the “death panel” idea was PolitiFact’s 2009 “Lie of the Year,” and was the first of FactCheck.org’s “Whoppers” of 2009.
Any observer of the data can see that increasing debt is a problem, driven by increases in spending. We recognize this reality in household decisions, and so promote the virtues of temperance and frugality so that families do not engage in consumerism. But apparently there is a disconnect at the aggregate level; even well-meaning folks will encourage unnecessary federal spending, even if it drives up the debt, because of a misplaced compassion that robs private charities of their duties to help the needy.
Yes, but who pays for that right? Pic by Health Care for All – Oregon
Of course, encouraging current federal spending to help impoverished people today only aggravates the potential that future people will be impoverished as their taxes go up to pay for debt incurred today. Being pro-life means that we do not give extra dignity or worth to the born vis-a-vis the unborn; a pregnant mother has no more dignity as a human person than does her unborn child. Further, the growing acceptance of environmentalism, from the Pope down, reinforces the fact that proper stewardship needs to be practiced for the benefit of future generations. So if we respect the unborn, why don’t we respect unborn taxpayers? Why do some Christians and Catholics feel it okay, or even morally superior, to encourage unnecessary spending on people now when it will saddle future taxpayers with burdensome debt?
“But Shaughnessy, spending on health care isn’t ‘unnecessary;’ if the government doesn’t take care of sick people, who will?” Indeed, who did take care of people before government got in the business?
Then he summoned his twelve disciples and gave them authority over unclean spirits to drive them out and to cure every disease and every illness. (Mt 10:1)
Why are Christians so quick to relinquish our duty to care for others? Why do we render this duty to Caesar? As in education, Caesar is more expensive and has worse results.
But back to Krugman. I find it interesting that, in facing the debt problem, the following assumptions seem to be taken for granted:
- The government program must be saved.
- Because of 1), the individuals receiving help under the government program need not be saved.
Instead of saving Medicare, let’s worry about saving our own souls. We shouldn’t need to use tax dollars to fund the corporal works of mercy. When asked what we need to do to inherit eternal life, Jesus tells the story of the Good Samaritan, of the man who voluntarily helps the traveler.
So, death panels may be back. Don’t say we didn’t tell you so.