SUBSCRIBE NOW WELCOME BACK. Do you want to continue reading where you left off? New Republic subscribers can pick up where they left off no matter which device they were previously using. SUBSCRIBE NOW

Go Home Hey, That's My Line! (Updated Reader Quiz)

JONATHAN COHN OCTOBER 25, 2011

Hey, That's My Line! (Updated Reader Quiz)

BY JONATHAN COHN

Reader quiz! Guess which pundit just said the following:

There are moral, public health and economic reasons not to have the sick and injured go untreated.

Hint: It's not Paul Krugman or Keith Olbermann.

The answer is...

 Jennifer Rubin, the Washington Post’s conservative blogger.*

Just to be clear about the context, she wasn’t trying to make the point that Krugman or Olbermann (or I) would with a statement like that. In other words, this wasn't part of an argument for universal health insurance. Rather, it was part of a commentary about the latest controversy over Matt Romney and health care in Massachusetts.

As you may have heard, Rick Perry has been attacking Romney because the Massachsuetts health care universal health care plan, which Romney famously enacted, finances care for undocumented immigrants. Rubin thinks the charge is unfair. I am pretty sure Rubin is correct.

It seems that Texas, under Perry, also pays to treat undocumented immigrants in various contexts. Citing material that the Romney campaign has been circulating, Rubin notes that Texas sometimes finances care to undocumented workers in non-emergency situations – and that it offers pre-natal care to undocumenteds with incomes below 200 percent of the poverty line. All of that is in addition to emergency care that publicly subsidized clinics and/or hospitals provide, in accordance with federal law.

And this is the right thing to do, Rubin says. A bit after making the statement I quoted above, she adds this:

Should hospitals and doctors insist the sick, pregnant and injured provide citizenship papers before getting treatment? Obviously, he doesn’t believe that. His state wouldn’t tolerate that.

Exactly! And you know what? You could substitute "insurance papers" for "citizenship papers" and the statement would be just as true. At least in principle, (almost) nobody wants to deprive people of care they truly need because those people can't pay for it. 

But wait a minute. If you think there are “moral, public health, and economic reasons not to have the sick and injured go untreated" – and if even an extremely conservative state like Texas “wouldn’t tolerate” demanding citizenship papers before providing health care – then haven’t you made the argument for guaranteeing health care for all? 

I am not trying to pick on Rubin here. Misstatement is an occupational hazard of blogging. (I could could attest to that personally!) 

But I’m genuinely curious. Is Rubin really ready to concede that everybody should get medical treatment when they need it? Are other conservative writers and thinkers? What about the Republicans running for president?

Most important, if they agree on that goal -- and if they think the Affordable Care Act is a lousy way to accomplish it -- what are their credible alternatives? Unless I've missed something, they don't have any.

*Kudos to reader "blackton," who guessed the answer after my original post, which included only the quote.

SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS

Show all 15 comments

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

15 comments

I want to say Rick Santorum, who displays a strand of economic social justice, but he's not really a pundit. How about Glenn Beck? It's the kind of inexplicable about-face that he would do.

- benjamin81

October 25, 2011 at 10:22am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Rich Lowry?

- RJSampson1

October 25, 2011 at 10:48am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

My guess: Charles Krauthammer, in praise of Mitt Romney's health care plan (back in the day).

- JEFF FREY

October 25, 2011 at 11:15am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I don't know who it is, but if until now they've made their living as a conservative pundit, they're screwed.

- Fishpeddler

October 25, 2011 at 11:30am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Erickson?

- chaitless

October 25, 2011 at 11:30am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Obama?

- AllanL5

October 25, 2011 at 11:49am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Karl Rove, as he knows Romney is the only Republican candidate with a real shot at winning the White House.

- markbenl

October 25, 2011 at 12:37pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

ooh, ooh, let me guess. Can it be Jennifer Rubin in the Washington Post's right turn column? But I don't believe her, there are moral, economic, and public health reasons to see that the sick and injured go untreated. It is called moral hazard, if you are too poor to afford health care then you should not get sick or injured and if you do get sick or injured you should effing die, thereby reducing the worlds excess population and leaving the resources of the earth to those who can best put it to use. Honestly, I truly think this is what she believes in her heart of hearts

- blackton

October 25, 2011 at 12:45pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I was going to guess Romney, but he's not a pundit. David Brooks or David Frum seem too obvious. Hmm.... Wow, Krauthammer was a good guess. Nice one, Jeff. Rich Lowry, that's very funny. I'll go with Bill O'Reilly. And my second guess is George Will.

- tysonsahib

October 25, 2011 at 1:28pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Frum or Bartlett wouldn't be enough of a shock, so they can't be right.

- dsimon

October 25, 2011 at 1:42pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The sentence sounds as if it's waiting for a hefty qualifier "BUT something something something . . . . " that jumps in after "untreated" Krauthammer or Peggy Noonan?

- ironyroad

October 25, 2011 at 3:40pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Oh, too late. I didn't realize the right answer was up there.

- ironyroad

October 25, 2011 at 3:41pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

In this, the Tea-Party followers are more honest with themselves than Perry or J-Ru. They're quite willing and able to say "Hell yes they should die or go home!" On the other hand, Perry and J-Ru are much more realistic and humane (when called on it, apparently). But the truly realistic and humane solution IS universal health-care -- which apparently is a bridge too far for them.

- AllanL5

October 25, 2011 at 4:38pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

It's a measure of how extreme the American right has become when a mainstream conservative commentator says, "There are moral, public health and economic reasons not to have the sick and injured go untreated", a position about as unexceptionable as "don't stomp on kittens", and it's so unusual that Mr Cohn writes a whole column on it. The situation is very similar to that on the left about 1972, when "more extreme than thou" was the way to get credibility and respect. God help the country!

- K_Wilson

October 25, 2011 at 4:54pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Next thing we'll be hearing from the Right: "There are, indeed, a number of legitimate reasons for educating children, a few of which have some bearing on our economic performance in the future."

- ironyroad

October 25, 2011 at 5:25pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

SHARE HIGHLIGHT

0 CHARACTERS SELECTED

TWEET THIS

POST TO TUMBLR

SHARE ON FACEBOOK

Close