What happened to GOP concern for poverty?

Isaac Chotiner poses the question:

In the last few years, these few traces of compassion and caring seem to have vanished completely from the GOP. At the most recent Republican debate, members of the Tea Party audience applauded the idea that society should allow people without health insurance to die. (In the previous debate, Rick Perry was cheered for Texas’s astronomical number of executions; see our recent editorial here.) And the candidates themselves remain completely uninterested in talking about poverty, or the uninsured, or indeed anyone downtrodden, unless it is to stir resentment over how little those same people pay in taxes. It appears that compassion—even simply at the rhetorical level—is not just passé: it’s also a sign of weakness. What happened?

I admit that it would be difficult to argue that the current iteration of the Republican Party lacks compassion entirely, but it wouldn't be entirely unreasonable to suggest that there is some measure of paucity when it comes to concern for the more vulnerable of society. I think you know what I mean: when we've reached the point at which it is considered acceptable to applaud the "should we just let the uninsured man die?" question, things aren't looking terribly promising in the compassion department.

Note, though, that it wasn't Ron Paul applauding the potential death of uninsured people, but instead the debate's relentlessly vapid Tea Party audience, who consistently and continually surprise us with their ignorance. One would hope that it's not the death of the individual they're applauding, but instead the freedom to make such risks and take such responsibility for oneself. It should also be noted that, in response to the question, Paul gave an immediate 'no'. He still has my support.

As someone who feels some sense of fiscal conservatism, I would prefer that we explore other avenues for saving people in their darkest hour; those without health insurance ought not to be tossed aside carelessly, but I would prefer that government is not the primary entity to offer such support. However, I cannot support callous disregard for those in need. There should be no doubt in our minds that these candidates do care about the poor, and should care about the poor. It's perfectly acceptable to hold a discussion whereby we can explore different avenues for providing the afore-mentioned care, but it is a far more important issue than one which can be dismissed with a simple, "Let him die."