By Paul Krugman, The New York Times. Posted August 27, 2007.

Conservative opposition to giving every child in this country access to health care is, in a fundamental sense, un-American.

Suppose, for a moment, that the Heritage Foundation were to put out a press release attacking the liberal view that even children whose parents could afford to send them to private school should be entitled to free government-run education.

They'd have a point: many American families with middle-class incomes do send their kids to school at public expense, so taxpayers without school-age children subsidize families that do. And the effect is to displace the private sector: if public schools weren't available, many families would pay for private schools instead.

So let's end this un-American system and make education what it should be -- a matter of individual responsibility and private enterprise. Oh, and we shouldn't have any government mandates that force children to get educated, either. As a Republican presidential candidate might say, the future of America's education system lies in free-market solutions, not socialist models.

O.K., in case you're wondering, I haven't lost my mind, I'm drawing an analogy. The real Heritage press release, titled "The Middle-Class Welfare Kid Next Door," is an attack on proposals to expand the State Children's Health Insurance Program. Such an expansion, says Heritage, will "displace private insurance with government-sponsored health care coverage."

And Rudy Giuliani's call for "free-market solutions, not socialist models" was about health care, not education.

But thinking about how we'd react if they said the same things about education helps dispel the fog of obfuscation right-wingers use to obscure the true nature of their position on children's health.

The truth is that there's no difference in principle between saying that every American child is entitled to an education and saying that every American child is entitled to adequate health care. It's just a matter of historical accident that we think of access to free K-12 education as a basic right, but consider having the government pay children's medical bills "welfare," with all the negative connotations that go with that term.

And conservative opposition to giving every child in this country access to health care is, in a fundamental sense, un-American.

Here's what I mean: The great majority of Americans believe that everyone is entitled to a chance to make the most of his or her life. Even conservatives usually claim to believe that. For example, N. Gregory Mankiw, the former chairman of the Bush Council of Economic Advisers, contrasts the position of liberals, who he says believe in equality of outcomes, with that of conservatives, who he says believe that the goal of policy should be "to give everyone the same shot and not be surprised or concerned when outcomes differ wildly."

But a child who doesn't receive adequate health care, like a child who doesn't receive an adequate education, doesn't have the same shot - he or she doesn't have the same chances in life as children who get both these things.

And insurance is crucial to receiving adequate health care. President Bush may think that lacking insurance is no problem - "I mean, people have access to health care in America. After all, you just go to an emergency room" - but the reality is that the nine million children in America who don't have health insurance often have unmet medical or dental needs, don't have a regular place for medical care, and frequently have to delay care because of cost.

Now, the public understands the importance of health insurance, even if Mr. Bush doesn't. According to a recent New York Times/CBS News poll, an amazing 94 percent of the public regards the fact that many children in America lack health insurance as either a "serious" or a "very serious" problem.

So how can conservatives defend the indefensible, and oppose giving children the health care they need? By trying the old welfare queen in her Cadillac strategy (albeit without the racial innuendo that made it so effective when Reagan used it). That is, to divert public sympathy from people who really need help, they're trying to change the subject to the supposedly undeserving recipients of government aid. Hence the emphasis on the evils of "middle-class welfare."

Proponents of an expansion of children's health care have, as they should, responded to this strategy with facts and figures. Congressional Budget Office estimates show that S-chip expansion would, in fact, primarily benefit those who need it most: the great majority of children receiving coverage under an expanded program would otherwise have been uninsured.

But the more fundamental response should be, so what?

We offer free education, and don't worry about middle-class families getting benefits they don't need, because that's the only way to ensure that every child gets an education - and giving every child a fair chance is the American way. And we should guarantee health care to every child, for the same reason.

__________________
The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it. United State Constitution, Art. I Sec. 9 Par. 2

"Dissent is the Highest form of Patriotism" -- Howard Zinn

I agree and I'll go beyond that and say every citizen should be entitled to health care at public expense. Take the profit out of health care, nationalize the hospital system, and pay the Dr.s a fair salary. Eliminate the Insurance and HMO corporations and allow the rich to seek private medical care as needed. This overhaul of our health care system is sorely needed, and hopefully will be addressed by the next administration. There will be fierce opposition by the afore mentioned corporate lobbyists, but the people (Remember them) must rise up and demand this!

__________________
Life is good, the water is sweet. The ground keeps moving beneath my feet.

This is the only thing in their entire article that I agree with:

So let's end this un-American system and make education what it should be -- a matter of individual responsibility and private enterprise. Oh, and we shouldn't have any government mandates that force children to get educated, either. As a Republican presidential candidate might say, the future of America's education system lies in free-market solutions, not socialist models.

There's no question that our K-12 government monopolized school systems are in utter failure. So, we might as well turn our privately run medical system over to the government in its entirety so they can ruin that too.

Vi

__________________
Liberals are people that will believe anything twice.

Baarrrffff! Sorry, but thats the only comment I have to this post.

__________________
Life is good, the water is sweet. The ground keeps moving beneath my feet.

Tell ya what, Med ... You come up with the constitutional authority for the federal government to take over our entire medical system and I'll buy into your ideas. Short of that, I'll stick to the pillar of liberty ... and that's constitutional governance. So, have at it big guy.

Vi

__________________
Liberals are people that will believe anything twice.

Why is it you are always asking me to constitutionalize all my arguements while you refuse to see the transgressions made by the Bush regime. For one, check out my signature then tell me the wiretapping is not unconstitutional. Tell me the war powers act is not unconstitutional. As Dank says, your arguements hold no water, I'm more inclined to call them bullshit.

__________________
Life is good, the water is sweet. The ground keeps moving beneath my feet.

here you go Vi.

Enough Said.

__________________
The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it. United State Constitution, Art. I Sec. 9 Par. 2

"Dissent is the Highest form of Patriotism" -- Howard Zinn

Dank, for a guy who criticizes Walter Williams, I find it quite amusing that you go ahead and post the genius Paul Krugman of the NYT and Princeton.
Mr Krugman has been WRONG almost 100% since about 1993.
Very interesting.
Krugman has quite the tawdry and sordid past, and is woefully inaccurate.

Krugman Truth Squad: Donald Luskin on Paul Krugman, the 2000 Presidential Election, and TimesSelect on NRO Financial

Donald Luskin on Paul Krugman, Damocles, and Imminent Threats on NRO Financial
Krugman Brings His Brand of Bad Economics to GQ | NewsBusters.org

Krugman's editor at the NYT had to sanction this socialist loon for making things up!

__________________
If you wind up with a boring, miserable life because you listened to your mom, your dad, your teacher, your priest or some guy on TV telling you how to do your shit, then YOU DESERVE IT.
~ Frank Zappa ~

Liberty means responsibility, that is why most men dread it.
~George Bernard Shaw~

Wavels, where have you been hiding, at a skinhead retreat I suppose, well pull that head back out and welcome back. I've missed your prurient comments, they don't make any sense but they usually make me laugh, you right wing nazi you. Been lighting any crosses up lately?~LOL~

__________________
Life is good, the water is sweet. The ground keeps moving beneath my feet.

Wrong in who's opinion?
RightWingers? Please, the republicans have been wrong since 1994, they got voted out of office.

__________________
The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it. United State Constitution, Art. I Sec. 9 Par. 2

"Dissent is the Highest form of Patriotism" -- Howard Zinn