Edwards proposes MANDATORY doctor visits, universal health care

[jillian]

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.

I don't think it's a big deal at all. I also think you're intentionally misreading his proposal. There is no requirement that you have mandatory care UNLESS you intend to be part of the system. It's a fair demand. You want to be part of government health care, then you have to keep those health-care costs lower by going to the doctor for regular preventative care. You don't do it, you're not covered by the plan.

On the other hand, you can opt out, go to the doctor or not go to the doctor as you wish... and then it's your own problem.

I'm not quite sure what about that is so difficult to get one's head around.

 

[Bern80]

I don't think it's a big deal at all. I also think you're intentionally misreading his proposal. There is no requirement that you have mandatory care UNLESS you intend to be part of the system. It's a fair demand. You want to be part of government health care, then you have to keep those health-care costs lower by going to the doctor for regular preventative care. You don't do it, you're not covered by the plan.

On the other hand, you can opt out, go to the doctor or not go to the doctor as you wish... and then it's your own problem.

I'm not quite sure what about that is so difficult to get one's head around.

I went back an re-read the entire article to see if I missed something. I didn't. There is nothing in the article that indicates that participation in his plan is optional. In fact quite the contrarty he is quoted several times as to the importance of everybody being part of the plan.

"It requires that everybody be covered. It requires that everybody get preventive care,"

Now is there something about the word 'everybody' that you can't wrap your head around? What indication is there anywhere that one can 'opt out' of his plan?

 

[jillian]

I went back an re-read the entire article to see if I missed something. I didn't. There is nothing in the article that indicates that participation in his plan is optional. In fact quite the contrarty he is quoted several times as to the importance of everybody being part of the plan.



Now is there something about the word 'everybody' that you can't wrap your head around? What indication is there anywhere that one can 'opt out' of his plan?

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."

Note... it says IF you are going to be part of the plan.

He emphasizes how important it is that everyone be covered... meaning they are entitled to be part of the plan. He then goes on to say that if they are not covered, then we need to explain who is not worthy of medical coverage. Nowhere do I see him emphasizing that we all have to be part of the plan... only that it has to be available to all.

Nowhere in the article do I see where it says we all have to PARTICIPATE. There is a difference between the plan being available to us, and the requirements to which we would be subject if it is, and the ability to opt out.

I stand by what I said.

 

[mattskramer]

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.

There is CHIP, Medicaid, Medicare, and other programs to help people pay for health care.

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.

If your life interferes with someone else’s life, then society has the ethical right to get into your life. Practically everything should be considered in moderation. “How to establish who is to blame” is one of the things that drew me from total libertarianism. In the area of air pollution, how do you, in a libertarian environment, determine whose cigarette smoke resulted in my ill health. Which smoke stack(s) are causing me to cough. Likewise, who give me this contagious disease? When I first read the beginning of this thread, I thought, “Oh no! More of the nanny-state” but now as I think about it, Edwards might be onto something. If I get sick due to lake of giving myself preventive care, it is my fault and I must suffer and pay for it. If I make someone else sick by passing on my disease, it is my fault but how do we know whom I made sick and that it was actually me who made him sick. I am undecided about the issue but people should be encouraged, in some way, to practice preventive care.

 

[Bern80]

Note... it says IF you are going to be part of the plan.

He emphasizes how important it is that everyone be covered... meaning they are entitled to be part of the plan. He then goes on to say that if they are not covered, then we need to explain who is not worthy of medical coverage. Nowhere do I see him emphasizing that we all have to be part of the plan... only that it has to be available to all.

Nowhere in the article do I see where it says we all have to PARTICIPATE. There is a difference between the plan being available to us, and the requirements to which we would be subject if it is, and the ability to opt out.

I stand by what I said.

Then you will need to explain what the difference is between your claim that it dioesn't indicate everybody must participate and his quote "It requires that everbody be covered." To me everybody means everybody. What is the difference between being covered by a plan and participating in a plan?

 

[Bern80]

There is CHIP, Medicaid, Medicare, and other programs to help people pay for health care.



If your life interferes with someone else’s life, then society has the ethical right to get into your life. Practically everything should be considered in moderation. “How to establish who is to blame” is one of the things that drew me from total libertarianism. In the area of air pollution, how do you, in a libertarian environment, determine whose cigarette smoke resulted in my ill health. Which smoke stack(s) are causing me to cough. Likewise, who give me this contagious disease? When I first read the beginning of this thread, I thought, “Oh no! More of the nanny-state” but now as I think about it, Edwards might be onto something. If I get sick due to lake of giving myself preventive care, it is my fault and I must suffer and pay for it. If I make someone else sick by passing on my disease, it is my fault but how do we know whom I made sick and that it was actually me who made him sick. I am undecided about the issue but people should be encouraged, in some way, to practice preventive care.

My belief isn't all that different. There is a difference however in encouraging certain beahviors and requiring certain behaviors.

 

[jillian]

Then you will need to explain what the difference is between your claim that it dioesn't indicate everybody must participate and his quote "It requires that everbody be covered." To me everybody means everybody. What is the difference between being covered by a plan and participating in a plan?

It means that you allow everyone to participate... that no one is left without health coverage.

That does not obviate the possibliity of someone purchasing private coverage.

 

[Bern80]

It means that you allow everyone to participate... that no one is left without health coverage.

That does not obviate the possibliity of someone purchasing private coverage.

Simple question: If you're employer is covering you under their health plan, are you participating in their health plan?

Do the word games not end with you?

You are presuming things that aren't there Jillian. No where in the article is the topic of personal options for coverage ever even hinted at in the article. Therefore there is no reason to assume opting out of his plan is an option. What I believe he means by 'if' and 'system' is basically be a part of teh US healthcare system which everyone who is a citizen is.

 

[jillian]

Simple question: If you're employer is covering you under their health plan, are you participating in their health plan?

Do the word games not end with you?

You are presuming things that aren't there Jillian. No where in the article is the topic of personal options for coverage ever even hinted at in the article. Therefore there is no reason to assume opting out of his plan is an option. What I believe he means by 'if' and 'system' is basically be a part of teh US healthcare system which everyone who is a citizen is.

No word games. I think you're intentionally obfuscating.

If my employer provides health coverage (which it does) and I allow them to take funds from my pay as my contribution to said health coverage (which I do) then I am a participant. If I choose to use my husband's employer's insurance, I can OPT OUT and simply refuse to make my expected contribution. Thus, I would no longer be a participant.

You talk about me playing word games. But in my business, and Edwards', too, for that matter, words are our stock in trade. The difference between the word "shall" in a statute and "may" is the difference between an obligation and an option. So complain all you want, that's what our laws are made up of.

I already explained his use of the word "if"... I know that wrecks the point you were trying to make about Edwards violating your precious rights, but I can't do anything about that.

Even if you were correct, which I don't believe you are, I find it so amusing that the right has a fit when their "rights" are disturbed vis a vis their right to be as unhealthy as they want or campaign finance reform ... but couldn't give a rat's patoot if the NSA wiretaps them without a warrant. Which do you think would be more important to the founding fathers?

It's really laughable.

 

[DeadCanDance]

seriously, is this the biggest complaint that Bush-fans can come up with? A healthcare system where you have to go the the doctor periodically for preventative healthcare checkups, or else you'll pay higher premiums if you don't?

Sad. From the party that took us into a disasterous war, destroyed america's credibility, shredded our relationship with allies, made us a laughingstock, and complete bungled the management of our fiscal budget, I would imagine going to the doctor for a physical once a year (or face higher premiums) would not be that terrifying.

 

[Alpha1]

Don't worry....you won't have to "opt out" of your employers plan....because there will be no employers HC plan to opt out of....they we drop health care for employees in a heartbeat if UHC becomes a reality.....and we'll be going for a checkup ... and paying....
These morons will jump through the hoops to defend this asshole or any other Dim no matter what kind of crap plans they come up with....thats standard procedure....if a dim says it, its got to be good....no matter how stupid it really is.....

 

[Bern80]

No word games. I think you're intentionally obfuscating.

If my employer provides health coverage (which it does) and I allow them to take funds from my pay as my contribution to said health coverage (which I do) then I am a participant. If I choose to use my husband's employer's insurance, I can OPT OUT and simply refuse to make my expected contribution. Thus, I would no longer be a participant.

You didn't answer the question. It's a simple yes or no. If you're employer covers you in their health plan, does that inherenlty mean that you are participating in it?

If you choose no to participate in your husbands health plan then they aren't covering you are they? Which runs contradictory to Edward's statement that it requires everyone be covered.

You talk about me playing word games. But in my business, and Edwards', too, for that matter, words are our stock in trade. The difference between the word "shall" in a statute and "may" is the difference between an obligation and an option. So complain all you want, that's what our laws are made up of.

I already explained his use of the word "if"... I know that wrecks the point you were trying to make about Edwards violating your precious rights, but I can't do anything about that.

I explained what I believe he means by 'if' and 'system' go back and read it then come back and gripe.

Even if you were correct, which I don't believe you are, I find it so amusing that the right has a fit when their "rights" are disturbed vis a vis their right to be as unhealthy as they want or campaign finance reform ... but couldn't give a rat's patoot if the NSA wiretaps them without a warrant. Which do you think would be more important to the founding fathers?

It's really laughable.

I see, so somehow through this you have ascertained that I am also in favor of the current wiretapping protocol? I'd love to know where you gernered any evidenc for that. Don't change the subject. What is laughable is you haveing to generalize my stance onto a completely different topic, which you have no idea what opinion is, top make your argument.

 

[jillian]

You didn't answer the question. It's a simple yes or no. If you're employer covers you in their health plan, does that inherenlty mean that you are participating in it?

If you choose no to participate in your husbands health plan then they aren't covering you are they? Which runs contradictory to Edward's statement that it requires everyone be covered.

I answered you.... you don't like the answer. Covering everyone means it's available to everyone. It doesn't mean you have to ACCEPT coverage.

I explained what I believe he means by 'if' and 'system' go back and read it then come back and gripe.

I couldn't find anything on point. Perhaps I'm missing the sentence you're referring to.

I see, so somehow through this you have ascertained that I am also in favor of the current wiretapping protocol? I'd love to know where you gernered any evidenc for that. Don't change the subject. What is laughable is you haveing to generalize my stance onto a completely different topic, which you have no idea what opinion is, top make your argument.

I believe those comments were referring to "the right", in general. They did not say that Denny believes this or Denny believes that, correct?

 

[Bern80]

I answered you.... you don't like the answer. Covering everyone means it's available to everyone. It doesn't mean you have to ACCEPT coverage.

You're right this is getting laughable. Laughable that you have to redefine words to make your argument. So you are saying that even if you choose not to particpate in a health plan it still covers you? unbelievable. You are aware of the difference between coverage and eligibility aren't you? Because really that's the word you're looking for. To be covered by a health plan you do, in fact, have to be particiapting in it.

I couldn't find anything on point. Perhaps I'm missing the sentence you're referring to.

he said 'if you're going to be part of the system'. In the context of the rest of the article and use of the word 'everybody' on several occasions, (requireing that everyody particpate and everybody get preventative care) I believe the system he is referring to is not his health plan but rather essentially being a participant in the U.S. health system, which basically every citizen is. The 'if' then is basically rhetorical because you don't have the ability to not be in the system (unless you move to another country). Again there is no indication from the article at least that anyone has the option of opting out or getting supplemental private insureance of some type.

I believe those comments were referring to "the right", in general. They did not say that Denny believes this or Denny believes that, correct?

If that is truly the case why post that in a reply to me at all then? It has nothing to do with subject. I'm not the rights spokesman and they don't speak for me either.

 

[Chips Rafferty]

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?

Now, now, Dead. Don’t be so ascerbic to poor ol' Bernie! His Proddie work ethic will always make him look a gift horse in the mouth.

Remember, it's never him you're taking to. It’s the MIC/Christapitalist puppet masters his parents permitted to put their anti-soshallus strings onto his predestined feeble brain at birth.

Work, Consume, Don't Complain, and Die...and then work a little more, is his capitalist Massa's maxim.

Why, expecting anything more than an obscenely large and predatory military for your tax dollar is downright Un-Umurukun!!

Working 25 hours a day for food stamps, sucking supervisor's arses, and being a law-abiding Blockleiter, who informs the police and pastor about his neighbour's every peccadillo - particularly his suspected agnosticism and his insipid patriotism, is what Protestantism is all about!

Everytime I read the self-described "rugged individualist" Proddies here preaching their patently programmed brand of asininely self-denying Corporate Socialism, I am reminded of The Four (self-made) Yorkshiremen

 

[Bern80]

Now, now, Dead. Don’t be so ascerbic to poor ol' Bernie! His Proddie work ethic will always make him look a gift horse in the mouth.

Remember, it's never him you're taking to. It’s the MIC/Christapitalist puppet masters his parents permitted to put their anti-soshallus strings onto his predestined feeble brain at birth.

Work, Consume, Don't Complain, and Die...and then work a little more, is his capitalist Massa's maxim.

Why, expecting anything more than an obscenely large and predatory military for your tax dollar is downright Un-Umurukun!!

Working 25 hours a day for food stamps, sucking supervisor's arses, and being a law-abiding Blockleiter, who informs the police and pastor about his neighbour's every peccadillo - particularly his suspected agnosticism and his insipid patriotism, is what Protestantism is all about!

Everytime I read the self-described "rugged individualist" Proddies here preaching their patently programmed brand of asininely self-denying Corporate Socialism, I am reminded of The Four (self-made) Yorkshiremen

Lets see how well I can pull a chips;

Chips was breast fed till he was five because that's what his hippie parents thought was best for him. They instilled asanine beliefs in him like that it is oaky to be dependant on government and other people in general to take care of him.

I love how the 'elitist libs' on this board come in here a pretend they know in biographical detail the lives of everyone on here.

 

[Shogun]

What if the Fed grants a 500$ tax credit to those who get annual preventative checkups?

Thus, the Fed could promote preventative care, retain individual perogative AND cut taxes!

holy SHIT!

 

[ScreamingEagle]

What if the Fed grants a 500$ tax credit to those who get annual preventative checkups?

Thus, the Fed could promote preventative care, retain individual perogative AND cut taxes!

holy SHIT!

Not a bad idea. I'm for HSAs too. However, I really don't see why the Fed has to be involved with health care at all unless it is to provide for a small core group of the destitute.

It seems to me that BOTH liberals and corporate types are pushing for government involvement in the lives of law-abiding citizens and thus for eventual control of the population one way or the other. Insurance companies are in bed with lawmakers. I totally disagree with Edwards. Those in power will eventually wind up in total control of you. Control a man's health service and you control the man. If you can force a man to see a doctor, you can force him to do lots of other things too.

Health services should be based upon a free market. Individuals should be able to shop for health insurance (or not) of their choice. If they want to, insurance companies can easily put in penalties for not wearing a seatbelt or helmet or not doing an annual physical if this would help control costs. They shouldn't get the government to do their dirty work. The individual should be able to buy (or not buy) the health insurance of his choice. I think the individual should pay market prices for everyday care (which would bring down prices) and only buy catastrophic health insurance for the big problems.

If you think going to the DMV is a hassle, wait until you need to go to the government health clinic...

 

[Shogun]

I would reply that, while not a concrete long term solution (what ever is?), if the fed stepped in to make modern corrections in application of the med field much like it did when breaking up bell labs not only would the population as a whole be better served but the medical and pharmie industries can circumvent becoming scapegoats. I'm reminded of a commerical which advertised a class action suit against a major pharmie company over a medication that used to be advertised on TV within the last two years. If the fed created a rule that banned ads on TV for perscription drugs, much like they have for tobacco products, both the population and the pharmie companies could have circumvented liability issues and getting sued. I don't want to force anyone into a program that they do not want to participate in. However, I do think that an upgraded medical system would only make the US a greater nation. Capitolism for the sake of theory isn't really a solution now any more than it was when monopolies threatened our infrastructure. there are workable solutions that we can agree on rather than getting no where with partisanship.


Perhaps even the entire cost of standard yearly healthcare could be tax deductable. Perhaps doctors whose patients maintain their health over extended periods of time could qualify for tax relief. I wonder where symbiotic solutions could develop if we focus on agreed upon positive reinforcement for desired behaviour.