The random political thoughts thread (Part Deux)

[Moonliner]

Originally Posted by Scrooge McSam

Link, please.

Sure...

Originally Posted by John Edwards own web site

On what he plans to do for the thousands of Americans who die each year because they do not have health insurance or money for treatment:

“There is an easy answer to that. I am proud that I came out with a truly universal health care plan that requires every single man and woman in America to have health care coverage. I actually think that is a question that should be put to every candidate, Democratic or Republican: If your health care plan doesn't cover everybody, then you should have to explain what this particular woman or child is not entitled to health care? Because my view is every single one of us have equal value and equal worth, and everybody's life is precious… Every single man and woman in this country should have health care coverage.”

The link

[Moonliner]

Of course the web site just says you are required to have health care, I don't see where he says you are required to have checkups. The only place I see that is on Fox News

[Scrooge McSam]

Thanks, Moon... I was familiar with that, but after further looking, I think Leo's concern is that Edwards' plan will require citizens to see a doctor according to some undetermined schedule. 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.

[Scrooge McSam]

Originally Posted by Moonliner

The only place I see that is on Fox News

Ah... well

[Moonliner]

Originally Posted by Scrooge McSam

Thanks, Moon... I was familiar with that, but after further looking, I think Leo's concern is that Edwards' plan will require citizens to see a doctor according to some undetermined schedule. 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.

If the fox quotes are accurate, I have trouble with your interpretation. His comments seem fairly cut and dry...

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."

[Alex]

Your link may be on Fox News, but they didn't write it. It is an Associated Press story. Here's the same story through Yahoo News.

It includes this direct quote of Edwards:

"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."

Can't vouch for the quote being correct, but if it is it doesn't sound like a very good plan on his part. If just the idea that maybe you wouldn't be able to pick your own doctor bothered a lot of people in 1993, the thought that you don't even get to choose whether you see the doctor is going to bother a lot more.

Of course, I'm not sure what enforcement would be like and how it would work.

[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).

[scaeagles]

Holy Cow! It's already happening in England.

Yikes!

But heavy smokers, the obese and binge drinkers who were a drain on the NHS could be denied some routine treatments such as hip replacements until they cleaned up their act.

[Motorboat Cruiser]

Um, you might want to re-read the article. It isn't happening there, it was merely suggested. And at least according to the comments posted below, it isn't a very popular suggestion.

[Strangler Lewis]

If these were industry-wide mandates among private health insurers or large employers who paid for insurance--so that choice/opting out wouldn't really be an option--would you be as upset? It would still be the all-powerful impinging on our freedom to destroy ourselves in the name of saving a buck.