The random political thoughts thread (Part Deux)

[scaeagles]

Originally Posted by Scrooge McSam

FWIW, it sounds to me that Edwards' is saying you won't be able to ignore your health for years and then expect the gov to swoop in provide emergency care when preventive care could have avoided the problem altogether.

That's really not the issue. Frankly, I wish more of society was indeed like that, in terms of accepting responsibility for a situation they created. If you smoke for 20 years, don't sue the tobacco companies because you got lung cancer - take responsibility because you knew the risk.

For me, the issue is more a fear of "well, if you had eaten more fiber, you wouldn't have this colon cancer, so we won't treat you" or "if you had taken calcium when you were younger you wouldn't have osteoporosis, so we won't replace that hip" or "if you had exercised more you wouldn't have heart disease" or any number of excuses that could be used in a no opt-out system that could be used to deny care.

Or, another step further - say your government doctor tells you to exercise more and you don't, so then you are denied care because you didn't follow the orders of the government doctor.

Or, another step further - the government wants to make sure you exercise, so there are mandatory exercise programs that you must go to.

These scenarios are not as far fetched as they seem, really. I would even say I don't think that Edwards necessarily wants those things to take place. But they will. Just as those who lobbied for warning labels and non smoking flights really didn't expect/want there to be the ridiculous laws against using a legal substance in public, and in some cases, in private (and I say that as a non-smoker).