The random political thoughts thread (Part Deux)

[Scrooge McSam]

Originally Posted by Moonliner

The only place I see that is on Fox News

Ah... well

[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.

[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."

[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.

[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.

[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.

[Alex]

At least with private, choice/opting out is always a choice even if a horribly expensive one. And it already happens to a large extent in private insurance and is the cause of much of the hue and cry over the evils of the letting the profit motive be involved in the health equation.

As I argued in our last go 'round, a government run system doesn't get rid of the profit motive, just shifts it to a different type of profit. Instead of balancing service against profit, you end up balancing service against not inciting a tax revolt. So eventually both health care managers eventually try to do the same thing: control the risk profiles of the covered pools.

And once the government is involved in pretty much every health expense in society they will use that that as the thin wedge to controlling every personal behavior than can be shown to have ties to those expenses.

So to me, it is pretty much inherent to whatever system is instituted but I'd still prefer that it be in the private sector where at least the issue of force isn't present. (As one of the comments on the story notes, people denied coverage for "unsafe" behaviors are surely going to still be required to pay into the system.) At least in teh private sector I at least either pay for and get service (though Moore's film rightly points out breaks in this) or I don't get service and don't pay for it.

[scaeagles]

Originally Posted by 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.

The beauty of the free market is that any industry wide mandate is either 1) forced upon the industry by the government or 2) disallowed by the government. Being that this is the case, I would be outraged, because it would be the government allowing it. So I suppose I answered it, but I disagree with the premise of the question.

The government has already done several good things in terms of portability of insurance. This was a fix I believe was prudent and necessary in a system where the primary source of health insurance is from employment. Only made sense to mandate that if an employee with a health difficulty changed jobs they couldn't be denied coverage at their new employ because of a pre existing condition.

I would not object if the private insurance system had programs that allowed discounts for healthy lifestyles or penalties for unhelthy ones....in fact, we already have it, but not to any extreme. Smokers may have to pay more for health and life insurance, and this is fine. I get a company discount on my employee portion of my health insurance costs by filling out a "health analysis" survey.

I don't have anyone forcing me to do anything.

I exercise daily because I see it as something that's beneficial. I don't eat many veggies. We all have things we do that aren't good for us. I don't want the government deciding that I can't be covered because of that. If I have a private company tell me that I must do something or pay more, than I have a choice.