John Edwards wants to force Dr. visits.

news.yahoo.com...

Democratic presidential hopeful John Edwards said on Sunday that his universal health care proposal would require that Americans go to the doctor for preventive care.

"It requires that everybody be covered. It requires that everybody get preventive care," he told a crowd sitting in lawn chairs in front of the Cedar County Courthouse. "If you are going to be in the system, you can't choose not to go to the doctor for 20 years. You have to go in and be checked and make sure that you are OK."

If you are liberal and reading this, you are thinking "Wow, this is great!" Because liberals are all feeling and no thought.

A conservative reading this is saying...

Cradle to Grave government control over your life.

More taxes which leads to lower government revenue. Just the opposite of what liberals think, even though it is proven time and time again.

How are we going to continue to produce competent doctors? All the years of sacrafice and big bucks spent on training...for what??? To become a government employee?

Getting in your car and driving cross country is a right, quitting your job and finding something else is a right, anything you want to do within our laws and no one else is paying for is a right.

Basically, you do not have the right to rely on other people money. So, healthcare is as much of a right, as the right to own a car. If you can pay for it great, but if you can't don't expect others to.



[edit on 3-9-2007 by RRconservative]

I think the Dem's are...

Breathing a collective sigh of relief that John Edwards is as irrelevant as he is... It's statements like this that gives the GOP a sliver of a chance in 2008, and demonstrates how dangerous HillBamaEdwarRich is...

Thanks John, but no thanks...

Anybody that agrees with John Edwards on this doesn't deserve to be called American. This is INCREDIBLE that he would even propose such a thing!
Talk albout total Fascist/Communist ideals!
Where did he read in the Constituion that the Government has the right to make me go to the doctor every year so that he can stick a finger up my back-side? I don't remember reading that part...
And what happpens if the doctor doesn't agree with my state of health?
If I'm ten pounds overweight is he going to force me on a diet? What if I refuse? Does Edwards think that I should be fined then? Or perhaps my caloric intake forcibly restricted for the good of all?
And, God forbid, if any of you out there have any "funny" chemicals in your urine....What then? Off to jail?

Oh yeah, that's one way to spread a pandemic. Like I'm going to trust a government doctor to give me shots required by the government.

actually, I am a tad bit liberal....and well, it wasn't a sigh of relief when I read about his great idea.....

anyone have any idea as to what kind of money racket the gov't/healthcare partnership could create.....

the gov't taxing the heck out of ya. the doctor having the pull of the gov't to enforce his precribed treatments...weather they are actually helping the patient or not....I'm getting visions of overworked people who have just worked 12 hours to pay for this and still have money for their necessities having to shell out even more to go to the fitness center to their prescribed hour of fitness excercise....with of course, kickbacks flying all over the place, to the doctor, to the politicians, ect....who cares about the patients health all I care about is that if I send this guy over to this pharmacy over here for this thousand dollar placebo, well, I'll get a hundred dollar paid under the table for sending him the business!!

and gee, it's a five thousand reward if I send this guy to the surgeon for an amputation.....umm...decisions, decisions...sorry guy, but your arms needs to be cut off...ya, I know it looks healthy, but.....

The healthcare industry is a racket now, and by God, I should have the right to boycott that racket if I like. I can't keep my money out of those illegal shannegans now, the gov't makes sure of it by sending a bunch of taxmoney into it...and now Edwards thinks he can force me to be an active participant of it?? Kind of makes me wonder....just what kind of chemicals does this guy want to test on the population?

it's gonna be a Mickey Mouse election year, I feel it coming on!

I get the idea from this John Edwards is planning to send out his goons to feel up ladies' breasts or guy's balls if you don't go to the doctor enough to check for cancer.


Uhhh...no thanks.

Setting aside all the Red Scare nonsense, Why is this a bad idea?

So, healthcare is as much of a right, as the right to own a car. If you can pay for it great, but if you can't don't expect others to.

Okay, I'll agree that transportation is a privilege -- as in not a necessity. We can live without cars. I agree. Like having a 50 inch flat screen tv, caviar, gold rings, braces, brand name clothing, new shoes, and foods from the other side of the world are privileges.

But, am I understanding you correctly in saying that health is a privilege?

How is health (quite necessary for living and being a productive member of society) a privilege?

....I'm seriously confused. Our constitution says that every single citizen has right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Doesn't the right to life necessarily include the right to health?

We (individually and collectively) cannot have liberty and happiness if we're unhealthy or dead.

Originally posted by Diseria
Setting aside all the Red Scare nonsense, Why is this a bad idea?

....I'm seriously confused. Our constitution says that every single citizen has right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Doesn't the right to life necessarily include the right to health?

We (individually and collectively) cannot have liberty and happiness if we're unhealthy or dead.

The Constitution does was not intended to guarantee that the Government would provide life, liberty and happiness. It only agrees that the Government has no right to interfere with one's pursuit of such and if necessary will protect it's citizens from infringement. That's why Edwards is reading it completely backward and his proposal is a violation of our esatblishing principles.

reply to post by passenger


Thanks for the clarification.

I have since realized that I've quoted the wrong document - "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" is from the Declaration of Independence. So my apologies for my mis-quoting.

However, I am still confused.

If a state wanted to have its own state-wide healthcare system, that's okay? It just can't be nationalized... What about a group of states?

...and couldn't one argue that Insurance companies are infringements on our right to life? Or that the doctors are not up-to-date on the latest medical findings?

If we're seriously "promot(ing) general welfare" (as per the preamble to the Constitution), then wouldn't it behoove us to make sure everyone's healthy?

I'm trying to understand why we're so eager to slam universal health-care. I have yet to see any figures that prove it a bad system -- just popularized rumors.

Originally posted by Diseria

If a state wanted to have its own state-wide healthcare system, that's okay? It just can't be nationalized... What about a group of states?

Yes, if a state wishes to have universal healthcare (and thinks they could actually get it to work out properly), I suppose they would do it. This dynamic is the fundamentals of the freedom of choice in america.

Nationalized? No. Group of states? No.

...and couldn't one argue that Insurance companies are infringements on our right to life? Or that the doctors are not up-to-date on the latest medical findings?

Perhaps an avenue could be found that would support that idea, but either way one has the choice not to utilized said companies, thereby eliminating most of that arguement.

If we're seriously "promot(ing) general welfare" (as per the preamble to the Constitution), then wouldn't it behoove us to make sure everyone's healthy?

Well, this is something that is far more encompassing than simple "health care". Ensuring "health" would essentially mean to dictate eating habits, sleeping habits, environment, lifestyle, and exercise (to name to most obvious ones).

How would they ensure it? Enforce it? Is it not one's right to be unhealthy, waste away, or even end their life?

We begin to enter a sticky wicket when broaching these subjects.

I'm trying to understand why we're so eager to slam universal health-care. I have yet to see any figures that prove it a bad system -- just popularized rumors.

Honestly, America is not like most other countries. We harbor (not as much as we used to and currently not nearly enough) serious mistrust of central government. Personally I think it's safe to say that the larger any human institution gets, the more inherently corrupt it is. This would ring true if my other belief is true as well (which I think it's safe to say is true as well).

The other belief is that governmental choices should be made on the lowest level possible.

There are many reasons I would prefer a state run health care system (if I absolutely had to live under one) to a federal run system, but here's a few:

- increased transparency
- increased ability to affect change
- more effective targeting of money
- increased access to specific decision-makers
- greater understanding of local issues and needs by decision makers
- greater chance of actually becoming a decision-maker
- decreased ability of lobbyists to centralized power


As I said, it's just a small number of reasons. Hope this helps and am open to discussion.

kj

healthcare may not be a right guarenteed under the constitution, but it does stand to reason that if the yearly argument that local communities, and states use to raise the taxes is the cost of providing that healthcare to the poor, and the federal government uses so much of that taxmoney to prop up the healthcare industry, and of course provide healthcare to the poor....well, it stands to reason that our society feels that having healthcare is a necessity. if it is a necessity, well then, there is a constitutional conflict in the making when you take from one group of have nots to give to another group of have nots...which is what is happening now...
we could stop providing healthcare for any of the have nots....
or we could expand our aid to ensure that all the have nots have....
or....we could just use the taxmoney to provide for everyone.....and lose quite a bit of freedom in the process, which well, is already happening in the name of "healthy living, your lifestyle is costing me money" but would only get worse.

of course, the government could also put some restraints on the healthcare industry and get the danged costs down to a reasonable level...but they won't do that one....not in the land of free capitalism!

...and couldn't one argue that Insurance companies are infringements on our right to life? Or that the doctors are not up-to-date on the latest medical findings?

Perhaps an avenue could be found that would support that idea, but either way one has the choice not to utilized said companies, thereby eliminating most of that arguement.

I don't think the argument can be so easily refuted...

As it is right now, choices (everyone's) are determined by finances. If you can't afford it, you don't have a choice. ((Dawnstar: Here's where we've already LOST our freedom of choice!!))

"You're too broke to afford having a choice!!"

That's not democratic...

That is pure and unadulterated capitalism. That's profit over the people -- Profit uber alles!!!! (There should be an umlaut over the u...)

(When will Democracy actually take precedent over profit? Is it even possible anymore?)

If we're seriously "promot(ing) general welfare" (as per the preamble to the Constitution), then wouldn't it behoove us to make sure everyone's healthy?

Well, this is something that is far more encompassing than simple "health care". Ensuring "health" would essentially mean to dictate eating habits, sleeping habits, environment, lifestyle, and exercise (to name to most obvious ones).

How would they ensure it? Enforce it? Is it not one's right to be unhealthy, waste away, or even end their life?

We begin to enter a sticky wicket when broaching these subjects.

Sticky wicket indeed. But I don't think that it necessarily has to come to external authority figures dictating our lives... (In fact, why are we so adamant that such tyrannical measures would become reality?)

(I'm pretty sure I'm gonna catch hell for bringin' it up, but whatever)
In 'Sicko' -- the Dr.'s in Britain weren't tailing their patients, the people are not being forced to do push ups, et cetera. The Dr. simply got paid more if his patients were healthier -- thus, a generalized social push towards getting people healthy. No fines, no punishment.

How does that system fail/not work? Why would it not work here?

((I suppose I should mention that I refer to 'Sicko' because that's the first time I've ever seen/heard about how the national health-care systems of Canada, Britain and France work. I'm not looking at it as gospel, but it's a nice counter-point to the hatred most Americans harbor (again, Thanks to the Red Scare).))

Honestly, America is not like most other countries. We harbor (not as much as we used to and currently not nearly enough) serious mistrust of central government. Personally I think it's safe to say that the larger any human institution gets, the more inherently corrupt it is.

I agree with you on both points here. (I often wonder what America might accomplish if it were smaller, or broken up a la Canada...)

But, what good does mistrust of central government do if our protests fall on deaf ears?

In accompaniment to the people mistrusting the government, the government should be afraid of its people and their protests. Mistrust is fine and dandy, but doesn't do anything, doesn't say anything, and most certainly doesn't promote change.

Mistrust is a good starting point. But it's not the final plateau...

The other belief is that governmental choices should be made on the lowest level possible.

What do you mean?



With regards to a state-wide health-care system: The closest thing that I know of to a state-wide health-care system is Mass., and that's (supposed) to insure all residents who can't afford health insurance. But it's not really a health-care system... and it doesn't really insure everyone. (Technically speaking, even though I have no health insurance, I don't qualify for MassHealth because I'm not a single mother, not disabled, not on SSI, et cetera. I'm not enough of a leech to qualify. )

If a state began implementing a state-wide health-care system, you wouldn't want to give it a try? Incomplete implementation will always be a problem, no matter what system of anything that we try -- we're humans. But I think it's worth attempting on a smaller scale...

With a universal heathcare, wouldn't that take away our freedom of choice as to which doctors you can go to? It would also create, I think, with the quality of a doctor. Under a government healthcare plan, that would mean they are funded by the government, and anybody who does business with the government knows they are slow pays, and cut corners whenever they can. So that allows them to determine which procedures are approved, and whatever they feel isn't necessary, isn't going to be done. That is scary. Doesn't Canada have a similar plan? Anybody on here that can speak how it has worked from a Canadian perspective?

reply to post by JENJESLIS


Okay, I started a thread: Calling all Canadians, Brits, & French (Healthcare Q&A)

I also asked AnxietyDisorder in this thread about her thoughts on nationalized health-care.


I think it's about friggin' time that we ASK people about how their national health-care system works, instead of relying on rumors from the 50's.

...I'm still intrigued about how the Constitution may or may not allow for nationalized health-care... Guess it all depends on how you choose to read/interpret it.

Originally posted by Diseria
...I'm still intrigued about how the Constitution may or may not allow for nationalized health-care... Guess it all depends on how you choose to read/interpret it.

All you have to do is read it. Again the Constitution is not there to make sure that everyone gets everything they need or want. It's only there to prevent Government from interfering with their freedoms to obtain them. It is not there to guarantee that everyone is happy and healthy. It only seeks to ensure that the Government will not deny them the right to seek those ends. In other words, it doesn't give Government the right to give you free stuff - it only prevents Government from taking it (freedom) away.

[edit on 6-9-2007 by passenger]

Originally posted by Diseria
I don't think the argument can be so easily refuted...

As it is right now, choices (everyone's) are determined by finances. If you can't afford it, you don't have a choice. ((Dawnstar: Here's where we've already LOST our freedom of choice!!))

"You're too broke to afford having a choice!!"

That's not democratic...

That is pure and unadulterated capitalism. That's profit over the people -- Profit uber alles!!!! (There should be an umlaut over the u...)

(When will Democracy actually take precedent over profit? Is it even possible anymore?)

A few points on this one:

1) We are not a democracy and I hope we never are one.
2) There is very little in the way of Capitalism in the health care industry. I find it odd that considering the last 40 years of government increasingly meddling, enabling, and subsidizing health care (people are increasingly unhappy, cost goes up, and quality goes down) that people wish more monopolization and government intrusion.

Health care has been socialized to the point to where universal health care isn't a very large step away.

3)Health care is, to me, no different than housing, food, and water (actually, it's less important than those 3). I do not wish the government to provide me with any of those 3, so health care isn't something I want from them either.

4) Owning a car opens up opportunities, but if you can't afford one, you have no choice. That's the way of the world, not something to get hung up on in select instances.

Sticky wicket indeed. But I don't think that it necessarily has to come to external authority figures dictating our lives... (In fact, why are we so adamant that such tyrannical measures would become reality?)

(I'm pretty sure I'm gonna catch hell for bringin' it up, but whatever)
In 'Sicko' -- the Dr.'s in Britain weren't tailing their patients, the people are not being forced to do push ups, et cetera. The Dr. simply got paid more if his patients were healthier -- thus, a generalized social push towards getting people healthy. No fines, no punishment.

How does that system fail/not work? Why would it not work here?

I didn't say it was a certain reality, however, to draw from that same "documentary", I found it striking that when in France, Moore for some reason entered in footage of a protest I found to be frivolous.

It said to me, whatever the government gives, people will expect more from it if you enable that culture.

I agree with you on both points here. (I often wonder what America might accomplish if it were smaller, or broken up a la Canada...)

But, what good does mistrust of central government do if our protests fall on deaf ears?

In accompaniment to the people mistrusting the government, the government should be afraid of its people and their protests. Mistrust is fine and dandy, but doesn't do anything, doesn't say anything, and most certainly doesn't promote change.

Mistrust is a good starting point. But it's not the final plateau...

America used to be broken up into smaller units (back when the Constitution was actually in use) and we accomplished a great deal. Now we simply seek to inflate our economy (in addition to borrowing to pay the bills) to maintain it rather than enrich it.

What do you mean?

I mean that if the federal government is meddling in things that should be handled on a lower level, then simply remove that power from them and restore it to the state.

A good example is the Department of Education, something I think should be eliminated with extreme prejudice.

If a state began implementing a state-wide health-care system, you wouldn't want to give it a try? Incomplete implementation will always be a problem, no matter what system of anything that we try -- we're humans. But I think it's worth attempting on a smaller scale...

I don't see that as a problem, however I do believe it should be a choice by the individual as to what type of state they wish to live in.

I would have no issues with any state but one I lived in trying it if the people agreed and called for it. I personally do not believe in that general scheme of government so I would not support it in my state.

I enjoy Virginia because they have rather loose gun laws, allowing open carry and easily obtained concealed carry licenses. I would not, however, live in Maryland, which has draconian gun laws.

This is not the only reason, but was merely an example.

Originally posted by KrazyJethro
A few points on this one:

1) We are not a democracy and I hope we never are one.

......I'm sorry, what?

Okay, I mean, I realize that in practice we've strayed far from what a democracy might be, but I thought we considered ourselves a democratic nation...?

....if we're not democratic, then wtf are we?? .....simply Capitalist? *shudders*

and why would you hope we never become one?

4) Owning a car opens up opportunities, but if you can't afford one, you have no choice. That's the way of the world, not something to get hung up on in select instances.

That's the way we've set up the world, yes.

So you're fine with choices being granted or limited by finances. Well then, rock on.

I am not fine.

My favorite history lesson was about the Greek city-states. You chose to live there, and by living there you agreed to follow the city-states' laws. If you disagreed with those laws, you could either stay and work to change the laws, or you packed your cart and moved. It was your right, damn near duty, to move -- better to move than to start trouble.

Now-a-days, even that choice/duty has been limited by finances!

In 'Sicko' -- the Dr.'s in Britain weren't tailing their patients, the people are not being forced to do push ups, et cetera. The Dr. simply got paid more if his patients were healthier -- thus, a generalized social push towards getting people healthy. No fines, no punishment.

I didn't say it was a certain reality,

Okay, so then can we agree that "they'll strictly and actively enforce good health!" is not a sound argument against a nationalized health-care system?

however, to draw from that same "documentary", I found it striking that when in France, Moore for some reason entered in footage of a protest I found to be frivolous.

It said to me, whatever the government gives, people will expect more from it if you enable that culture.

I can't really argue for or against this point -- frivolous is an ambiguous term that is context sensitive. I don't know what the French were protesting for, or why.

But you know what I thought during the protest scenes? "There's a country where the people's voices are actually heard!" The last protest I saw was in Chicago -- a non-violent protest that got laughed out of the media. Meanwhile, violent protests are (rightly) shunned and abhorred. In both cases -- we, the people, are not heard.

Of course, we were assured of that with the last two presidential elections...


If we're not a democracy, but rather a purely Capitalist nation, then we should not tout democratic principles, and we should not raise our young to grow up believing in them. It's really quite frustrating and disillusioning to be told we have a choice, when we never really did.

Preventive care ?
Thats just bizarre to say the least here in New Zealand nobody goes to the doctor for preventive care. Besides by the time you increase taxes it is least likely that lower income people would be able to afford to go to the doctor. When you deal with the issues that surround helping the less well off in society one must be careful not to hurt the same people that we are trying to help.

Originally posted by Diseria
......I'm sorry, what?

Okay, I mean, I realize that in practice we've strayed far from what a democracy might be, but I thought we considered ourselves a democratic nation...?

....if we're not democratic, then wtf are we?? .....simply Capitalist? *shudders*

and why would you hope we never become one?

We are not a democracy, never have been, and I hope never will be. We are (supposedly) a Constitutional Republic based on personal property rights and individual liberty.

Democracy is tyranny of the majority or (in more average joe phrasing) two wolves and a lamb voting on what's for dinner.

That's the way we've set up the world, yes.

So you're fine with choices being granted or limited by finances. Well then, rock on.

I am not fine.

My favorite history lesson was about the Greek city-states. You chose to live there, and by living there you agreed to follow the city-states' laws. If you disagreed with those laws, you could either stay and work to change the laws, or you packed your cart and moved. It was your right, damn near duty, to move -- better to move than to start trouble.

Now-a-days, even that choice/duty has been limited by finances!

Perhaps you are missing the oddity in your parallel. You say that in Greece (where they could either ride a horse/wagon or walk) had greater opportunity and availability of movement than now?

Horses cost money, as did/do wagons, thereby curtailing mobility (or at the very least the speed) due to finances.

This is nothing new. Since the advent of money things have worked this way to one degree or another, and I think you'd be hard pressed to find a way to disallow finances to be the controlling factor in privilege or ability (outside of idealistic/impossible communism, which is nonsense).

Okay, so then can we agree that "they'll strictly and actively enforce good health!" is not a sound argument against a nationalized health-care system?

Never said it was, although I was merely pointing out that once a line is drawn and power given to government to enable, subsidize, or enforce any level of health (directly) of it's people, that there lies a slippery slope I wish to avoid.

If we're not a democracy, but rather a purely Capitalist nation, then we should not tout democratic principles, and we should not raise our young to grow up believing in them. It's really quite frustrating and disillusioning to be told we have a choice, when we never really did.

We are far from purely capitalistic, and in fact become more socialistic every year. I know it's not said by most (or even noticed), but the Republicans are Moderate socialists at best and the dems are pretty much communists (or at best strong socialists). Their defining points of difference are in social politics, most of which are not the purview of the federal government to begin with.

We have the choice in less things every year because we have centralized the money supply. Only personal property (ownership of one's property and labor/earnings) and individual rights are the only avenue towards choice.

Neither party favors those fundamentally American ideals, and most soft folks of today are too mentally lazy to deal with the pains of reverting our government to it's proper place, despite it being in everyone's best interest to do so.

As the federal government gets larger and more powerful, the American people lose proportionally, economically, judicially, and in terms of liberty.

Liberty is a dying ideal in America.

Originally posted by KrazyJethro
We are not a democracy, never have been, and I hope never will be. We are (supposedly) a Constitutional Republic based on personal property rights and individual liberty.

Democracy is tyranny of the majority or (in more average joe phrasing) two wolves and a lamb voting on what's for dinner.

The US being a republic makes more sense, based on our actions. Of course, then we shoulda stuck with the first draft of the Declaration of Independence... "pursuit of life, liberty, and property..." At least be honest about it.

And I agree with your thoughts on democracy -- as it is now.

I guess I can't help but wonder what a true democracy might accomplish...

Since the advent of money things have worked this way to one degree or another, and I think you'd be hard pressed to find a way to disallow finances to be the controlling factor in privilege or ability (outside of idealistic/impossible communism, which is nonsense).

I'm workin' on it.
Best idea I've come up with so far is self-sufficiency. Find or create a trade and barter community and live off the grid. Only thing I haven't gotten around is the property taxes, or the prerequisite capitol to purchase the land...

Any way to enact the 40 acres and a mule thing again?

Liberty is a dying ideal in America.

I wonder how we could ever be free, truly free, if we're controlled by (more correctly: allow ourselves to be controlled by) finances.

[edit on 12-9-2007 by Diseria]