"A Socialist Plot" - Excellent Krugman
On today's New York Times Opinion page, Paul Krugman imagines how Americans would react were we to apply current Republican presidential candidates' thinking to education:
Why do we as a nation accept the notion of "universal education", while American conservatives cringe at the phrase "universal health care"? We rightly believe that every child should have the opportunity to "get ahead", and we know that education is necessary for such advancement, of course. But is it possible to believe that by the same natural right a child has to education, she does not also have the right to health care? Is it possible to be well-educated but ill, malnourished, without vaccinations, etc., and to still "get ahead"? Of course not.
In 1944, President Franklin Roosevelt, in a speech to Congress, while calling the American Revolution "unfinished", proposed a second Bill of Rights. Among the rights required for the pursuit of happiness, according to FDR, was health care:
You can link to Krugman's article here:
http://select.nytimes.com/2007/08/27/opinion/27krugman.html
UPDATE 8/28/07: The Census Bureau announced today that the number of Americans without health care has risen to approx. 47 million, or 15.8% of the population. Read the L.A. Times article here:
http://www.latimes.com/news/la-na-census29aug29,1,5095596.story
I welcome your comments - click the link below this post.
"... let’s end this un-American system and make education what it should be — a matter of individual responsibility and private enterprise. ...we shouldn’t have any government mandates that force children to get educated, either. ...the future of America’s education system lies in free-market solutions, not socialist models." (NYT, Op-Ed 8/27/07)Of course, as Krugman points out, pubic education is a socialist endeavor, and one that is supported by most every American. Even those who pay to send their children to private school and subsidize the public schools with their tax dollars seem not to object.
Why do we as a nation accept the notion of "universal education", while American conservatives cringe at the phrase "universal health care"? We rightly believe that every child should have the opportunity to "get ahead", and we know that education is necessary for such advancement, of course. But is it possible to believe that by the same natural right a child has to education, she does not also have the right to health care? Is it possible to be well-educated but ill, malnourished, without vaccinations, etc., and to still "get ahead"? Of course not.
In 1944, President Franklin Roosevelt, in a speech to Congress, while calling the American Revolution "unfinished", proposed a second Bill of Rights. Among the rights required for the pursuit of happiness, according to FDR, was health care:
"The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;"Now, 63 years later we remain locked in debate over what would seem a natural truth: that included among those "unalienable rights" should be the right to health care for every child. Carefully consider the plight of the nearly 10 million American children without health care before you make a trip to the ballot box this November.
You can link to Krugman's article here:
http://select.nytimes.com/2007/08/27/opinion/27krugman.html
UPDATE 8/28/07: The Census Bureau announced today that the number of Americans without health care has risen to approx. 47 million, or 15.8% of the population. Read the L.A. Times article here:
http://www.latimes.com/news/la-na-census29aug29,1,5095596.story
I welcome your comments - click the link below this post.
Comments