Edwards proposes MANDATORY doctor visits, universal health care

[Little-Acorn]

It's a basic truism that government only has the power to force you to do what you don't want to. For those who want to rob banks, govt has the power to force them not to, by throwing them in jail.

But those who want to expand government into formerly-private fields like health care, may soon find out that the truism applies to them, too... and just as unpleasantly. Why they keep pushing for government coercion applied to the field of health care remains a mystery, but government (at least the liberal side of it) is proving happy to supply that coercion.

John Edwards, one of the major players in the Democrat race to expand government into every nook and cranny of American life, is now proposing to force people to visit the doctor whether they wanted to or not. I'm not sure what penalties he proposes for those dare to not obey him - such details are probably left to the fine print somewhere. But if he or similarly liberal Democrats are elected in 2008, we'll probably find out, and soon.

There seems to be a strange tendency among these people, to make everything compulsory that isn't forbidden. What is the limit (if any) to how far they will go?

---------------------------------------------------

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070902/ap_on_el_pr/edwards_2

Edwards backs mandatory preventive care

Sept. 2, 2007

by AMY LORENTZEN, Associated Press Writer
2 hours, 30 minutes ago

TIPTON, Iowa - 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."

 

[Bern80]

Is this guy out of his mind? Forget the many worries I have about UHC, but making you go to the doctor? (and nobody better pretend he didin't say that).

It doesn't get anymore typically liberal then that and as close to someone actually saying what many libs are all about: That Americans are too stupid to take care of themselves. The all knowing libs know what is best for you. Thus the libs are going to legislate the choices you get to make where you're best interests are concerned.

 

[Avatar4321]

Edwards just doesnt know when to shut up does he? Let's ignore freedom altogether.

 

[Mr.Conley]

I could entertain the idea of requiring minors to attend complusory doctors visits, and maybe even those on government welfare programs such as Medicaid, but I can't support a program that requires both mandatory payments and mandatory visits for all citizens.

 

[DeadCanDance]

"Edwards proposes MANDATORY doctor visits"


Oh, the horror!!!

LOL - this is funny...you're scrapping the bottom barrel, for manufactured faux-outrage here, dude. This is the least of our worries, and it actually makes economic sense. Requiring preventative healthcare would reduce everyone's insurance costs and premiums.

I've lived in states with mandatory safety inspections on cars, are heard nary a peep from NeoCons about any alleged outrage over that.

 

[Mr.Conley]

"Edwards proposes MANDATORY doctor visits"


Oh, the horror!!!

LOL - this is funny...you're scrapping the bottom barrel, for manufactured faux-outrage here, dude. This is the least of our worries, and it actually makes economic sense. Requiring preventative healthcare would reduce everyone's insurance costs and premiums.

I've lived in states with mandatory safety inspections on cars, are heard nary a peep from NeoCons about any alleged outrage over that.

Well, an unsafe car on the road is a direct threat to itself, the owner, all occupants and everyone around it. Someone not seeking preventative healthcare is, at best, an indirect threat to a few immediate family members.

Though I must question whether a nice little bit of out-of-contextism is all that's occuring here.

 

[DeadCanDance]

Well, an unsafe car on the road is a direct threat to itself, the owner, all occupants and everyone around it. Someone not seeking preventative healthcare is, at best, an indirect threat to a few immediate family members.

Though I must question whether a nice little bit of out-of-contextism is all that's occuring here.

People who don't get preventive medical care, and then get sick, cost the rest of us money - through increased premiums and healthcare costs.

I'm quite sure Edwards isn't talking about throwing anyone in jail if they don't get preventative healthcare. At worst, I have no problem jacking up the premiums for people who refuse to get preventative health care under a universal plan. If they don't want to take care of themselves, they can pay higher premiums than people who do take care of themselves.

 

[Ruby]

We already do force medical care to some degree. All children MUST go to school and in order for a child to get into school, they must get their immunizations. If the state found a 5 year old child who had never been to the doctor for check ups, the normal illnesses and immunizations you can bet that there would be some investigation and possibly they might take the child and charge that parent or care-taker with neglect.

I also remember in school they had us submit to eye tests, hearing tests and scoliosis screening.

We already have elements of mandatory health care. Has the US exploded from it?

 

[Bern80]

"Edwards proposes MANDATORY doctor visits"


Oh, the horror!!!

LOL - this is funny...you're scrapping the bottom barrel, for manufactured faux-outrage here, dude. This is the least of our worries, and it actually makes economic sense. Requiring preventative healthcare would reduce everyone's insurance costs and premiums.

I've lived in states with mandatory safety inspections on cars, are heard nary a peep from NeoCons about any alleged outrage over that.

People like you simply don't get it. This is a big deal. When you eliminate the choices people are allowed to make or not make you have eliminated freedom. If you want freedom you have to take the good with the bad and that means allowing people to make their own choices even if they may be bad ones.

Apparently you believe exactley what I said libs believe, that you know whats best for the rest of us and if we don't make the right choices you're gonna pass legislation requiring us to make the right choices. There is no 'out of context' here Edwards said plain as day that huis program will require preventative care.

 

[Ruby]

People like you simply don't get it. This is a big deal. When you eliminate the choices people are allowed to make or not make you have eliminated freedom. If you want freedom you have to take the good with the bad and that means allowing people to make their own choices even if they may be bad ones.

Apparently you believe exactley what I said libs believe, that you know whats best for the rest of us and if we don't make the right choices you're gonna pass legislation requiring us to make the right choices. There is no 'out of context' here Edwards said plain as day that huis program will require preventative care.

Arent immunizations preventative care? Those are mandatory....does this mean the US has just been one large prison all these years?

 

[Bern80]

We already do force medical care to some degree. All children MUST go to school and in order for a child to get into school, they must get their immunizations. If the state found a 5 year old child who had never been to the doctor for check ups, the normal illnesses and immunizations you can bet that there would be some investigation and possibly they might take the child and charge that parent or care-taker with neglect.

I also remember in school they had us submit to eye tests, hearing tests and scoliosis screening.

We already have elements of mandatory health care. Has the US exploded from it?

Because there is a difference in legislating the choices you can you make that effect others and the choices you make that only effect you.

 

[Bern80]

Arent immunizations preventative care? Those are mandatory....does this mean the US has just been one large prison all these years?

Awfully prone to exagerration aren't we. See post above. Same principle.

 

[Ruby]

Because there is a difference in legislating the choices you can you make that effect others and the choices you make that only effect you.

There are plenty of illnesses that are contagious AND untreated illnesses end up costing the taxpayers more money and thats even WITHOUT universal care.

Also, there are plenty of jobs who also require the medical check-ups and even a drug screening because the insurance company wont cover you without it (both life, health and disablity).

There are NUMEROUS aspects of compulsory medical care from both the govt and the private sector.

 

[Ruby]

Awfully prone to exagerration aren't we. See post above. Same principle.

Not at all, in fact I think the exaggeration is the original post and even your reaction...trying to pretend that this proposal is something unheard of in american society or that its some deep infringement of your rights.

 

[Bern80]

Not at all, in fact I think the exaggeration is the original post and even your reaction...trying to pretend that this proposal is something unheard of in american society or that its some deep infringement of your rights.

It is an infringement on my freedom. If I choose not to see a doctor what business is it of the government?

This is just the tip of the ice berg for libs and it will never end until we all live our lives exactley the way they deem is 'best' for us.

 

[Bern80]

There are plenty of illnesses that are contagious AND untreated illnesses end up costing the taxpayers more money and thats even WITHOUT universal care.

Also, there are plenty of jobs who also require the medical check-ups and even a drug screening because the insurance company wont cover you without it (both life, health and disablity).

There are NUMEROUS aspects of compulsory medical care from both the govt and the private sector.

So the answer is 'no' you don't see the difference. I don't have many problems with laws that are designed to protect others from the choices you make, like background checks for firearms, or laws banning cell phone use while driving. Laws like that are in place to protect others from you. Others whom w/o said laws would have no protection.

There are other laws on the books that are designed to protect people solely from injury to themselves. Laws like that I beleive are wrong. The choices that only effect me are none of the gevernments business. I don't need them babysitting me to make sure I behave like a good little drone. Laws that fall under that category would be seat belt laws. Whether I choose to wear one or not only effect me, nobody else. If I want to be an idiot and not wear one, what the hell business is it of the governments?

 

[DeadCanDance]

So the answer is 'no' you don't see the difference. I don't have many problems with laws that are designed to protect others from the choices you make, like background checks for firearms, or laws banning cell phone use while driving. Laws like that are in place to protect others from you. Others whom w/o said laws would have no protection.

There are other laws on the books that are designed to protect people solely from injury to themselves. Laws like that I beleive are wrong. The choices that only effect me are none of the gevernments business. I don't need them babysitting me to make sure I behave like a good little drone. Laws that fall under that category would be seat belt laws. Whether I choose to wear one or not only effect me, nobody else. If I want to be an idiot and not wear one, what the hell business is it of the governments?

Calm down. If you choose to put yourself at risk, by not practicing preventative healthcare and periodic checkups, and not wearing safety belts in your car, you cause in increase in insurance premiums and costs for the rest of us. It doesn’t just affect you.

Any universal healthcare plan has to be about shared responsibility. You can’t require employers and the government to provide you insurance, if you yourself aren’t willing to share responsibility. Under Edwards plan, those who get periodic physicals and enroll in healthy lifestyle programs will be rewarded with lower premiums. If you choose to blow off preventative healthcare and periodic checkups, you will pay a higher premium. Its as simple as that. No one is going to be thrown into jail, for refusing to see their doctor for a checkup.

Frankly, seeing your doctor once a year for a checkup is hardly a burden.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Going to the police station and being blood and DNA typed and finger printed is hardly an burden either. And that too would be for "OUR" protection. It would make enforcement of laws and capture of criminals faster and easier, releaving a financial burden on our government and helping victims of crimes. What do you suppose would happen if Edwards suggested that?

 

[DeadCanDance]

Going to the police station and being blood and DNA typed and finger printed is hardly an burden either. And that too would be for "OUR" protection. It would make enforcement of laws and capture of criminals faster and easier, releaving a financial burden on our government and helping victims of crimes. What do you suppose would happen if Edwards suggested that?

LOL - Yeah, because getting fingerprinted is exactly like going to the doctor. Great analogy!


Newsflash: Many states DO require you to be fingerprinted if you get a driver's liscence. And your president is implementing that national ID act, where you'll have to carry a ID card around with all your biometrics embedded in it: where any bank, store merchant, or employer can scan it, and have access to all your personal info. But, oddly, you haven't complained once, or made a peep, about your President's REAL ID act. I wonder why?

 

[Bern80]

Calm down. If you choose to put yourself at risk, by not practicing preventative healthcare and periodic checkups, and not wearing safety belts in your car, you cause in increase in insurance premiums and costs for the rest of us. It doesn’t just affect you.

What a typically liberal rationale. In the 'goodness' of your heart you feel it is more important to save people money than save their freedoms. The increase in premiums would be negligible at best and you're also assuming that if it weren't on the books people wouldn't wear seatbelts. Afterall that would be the only way for premiums to go up. The way liberals tackle solving problems it's absolutely stupifying sometimes.

Any universal healthcare plan has to be about shared responsibility. You can’t require employers and the government to provide you insurance, if you yourself aren’t willing to share responsibility. Under Edwards plan, those who get periodic physicals and enroll in healthy lifestyle programs will be rewarded with lower premiums. If you choose to blow off preventative healthcare and periodic checkups, you will pay a higher premium. Its as simple as that. No one is going to be thrown into jail, for refusing to see their doctor for a checkup.

If Edwards is asking people to still pay premiums than he will not achieve UHC. The only way to make healthcare affordable to all is to make it free for all because at any given time there will be a group of people unable to pay for healthcare.

Frankly, seeing your doctor once a year for a checkup is hardly a burden.

It has nothing to do with burden. It has to do with libs wanting to babysit the population and preach what is best for us. GET THE FUCK OUT OF MY LIFE.