Even if everything Samuelson said about cost control were true, how on earth does that qualify as defending the status quo? Last time I checked, the status quo means that tens of millions of people have no insurance while tens of millions more have insurance that doesn't cover their needs. The reforms Obama supports would mean everybody get could comprehensive insurance at a price they could afford.

Samuelson doesn't contest this. On the contrary, he sees it as part of the problem. Note the quotes around "right" and "moral" in his column. The people who end up going "bankrupt" or watching loved ones "die" because of unaffordable health insurance might beg to disagree.

I actually am finding this health care debate quite clarifying. After the years of sanctimonious garbage about "compassionate conservatism" these people are finally being forced to say what they really believe: they just don't care about anybody but themselves. If anything should happen to them personally, or they fail to get wealthy, the government should help them because they are deserving. Others (and I think you know what I'm talking about) simply aren't worthy.

After all, if you acknowledge that someone else has a "right" it means you've lost yours. There's only so much life, liberty and happiness to go around.

.