Just go ahead and kiss freedom of choice goodbye

[Tigermike 3,042]

John Edwards: "you can't choose not to go to the doctor for 20 years."

Edwards' universal health care proposal ignores individual autonomy:

Edwards backs mandatory preventive care

By AMY LORENTZEN, Associated Press Writer Sun Sep 2, 6:30 PM ET

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."

He noted, for example, that women would be required to have regular mammograms in an effort to find and treat "the first trace of problem." Edwards and his wife, Elizabeth, announced earlier this year that her breast cancer had returned and spread.

Edwards said his mandatory health care plan would cover preventive, chronic and long-term health care. The plan would include mental health care as well as dental and vision coverage for all Americans.

"The whole idea is a continuum of care, basically from birth to death," he said.

The former North Carolina senator said all presidential candidates talking about health care "ought to be asked one question: Does your plan cover every single American?"

"Because if it doesn't they should be made to explain what child, what woman, what man in America is not worthy of health care," he said. "Because in my view, everybody is worth health care."

Edwards said his plan would cost up to $120 billion a year, a cost he proposes covering by ending President Bush's tax cuts to people who make more than $200,000 per year.

Edwards, who has been criticized by some for calling on Americans to be willing to give up their SUVs while driving one, acknowledged Sunday that he owns a Ford Escape hybrid SUV, purchased within the year, and a Chrysler Pacificia, which he said he has had for years.

"I think all of us have to move, have to make progress," he said. "I'm not holyier-than-thou about this. ... I'm like a lot of Americans, I see how serious this issue is and I want to address it myself and I want to help lead the nation in the right direction."

He said he would not buy another SUV in the future. (Since he was exposed)

The Ford Escape, the first hybrid SUV on the market, gets an estimated 36 mpg in the city and 31 mpg on the highway.

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

So, the mental health check is mandatory too? Why does he not even realize how bad that sounds? He's so warmed up about the generous benefits he's promising that he doesn't even hear the repressiveness in his own statements. I'm sure he won't be able to deliver on these promises. I'm just wondering about a person with so little sensitivity toward personal freedom.

Did I misunderstand what he meant by "require" and that "require" really doesn't mean you'll be forced, only that the big bad medical establishment will be required to provide?

[rexbo 104]

And the liberals think Bush has erased our freedom in this country?!?!!?

[TexasTiger 12,966]

Out of context. Clarification:

http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives...oad_to_fas.html

[otterinbham 0]

Well, Edwards has unwittingly expressed the greatest fear of those opposing nationalized healthcare: Namely that one's health quickly goes from being your own personal business to being that of the state. Because taxpayer dollars are involved in your treatment, the state has an obligation to drive down costs. That means the state has a right to dictate lifestyle choices.

Sound like some shrill fantasy of the right? Nope. Already, the NHS in Britain is seriously discussing the possibility of denying people whose lifestyle choices cause bad health. What's more, the definition of bad lifestyle choices can be expanded infinitely to include a number of things that we do everyday--from obvious choices such as smoking cigarettes to alcohol consumption to a low fat diet. After all, cancer and heart disease are lifestyle driven. That means that government has a built-in imperative to tell you how to live and what to eat--all to balance the Federal budget.

In 1984, anybody remember how Winston Smith began his day? Calisthenics under the watchful eye of Big Brother. Seems like Orwell's dystopian vision is closer to becoming reality if flakes like John Edwards get their hands on the levers of power in this country.

[Tigermike 3,042]

Out of context. Clarification:

http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives...oad_to_fas.html

I knew there would be someone (many some ones) pointing out our misunderstanding of what he really, really meant by "require" and that "require" doesn't mean you'll be forced.

[TexasTiger 12,966]

Out of context. Clarification:

http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives...oad_to_fas.html

I knew there would be someone (many some ones) pointing out our misunderstanding of what he really, really meant by "require" and that "require" doesn't mean you'll be forced.

If you choose to be in the system, you get checked:

"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."

If you choose to not be in the system, you don't.

[Tigermike 3,042]

Out of context. Clarification:

http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives...oad_to_fas.html

I knew there would be someone (many some ones) pointing out our misunderstanding of what he really, really meant by "require" and that "require" doesn't mean you'll be forced.

If you choose to be in the system, you get checked:

"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."

If you choose to not be in the system, you don't.

Where does he not ignore individual autonomy?

But don't forget to pay your taxes in order to pay for all those check ups for everyone else.

If I am sick enough to go to the Dr. I go. If I am not then I don't.

I get a check up every couple of years if I need one or not.

[CircleDrill 178]

In 1984, anybody remember how Winston Smith began his day? Calisthenics under the watchful eye of Big Brother. Seems like Orwell's dystopian vision is closer to becoming reality if flakes like John Edwards get their hands on the levers of power in this country.

Another book you should read is "Brave New World" by Aldous Huxley. This book was written in 1932, but is so eerily reminiscent of today and the proposed future of some politicians that it will make you really think.

Just saying...

[autiger4life 3]

This is the same idea of whether we should be required to wear a seatbelt. Should the government require me to be safe when not wearing my seatbelt doesn't harm anyone else. IMO the answer is yes. Because often times the person who gets hurt from not wearing the seat belt gets health care covered by the tax payers. So, if we make people be safer, we save money and can lower taxes.

Same idea with this. If you require everyone to have preventitive healthcare then we save money because we catch things in early stages. But I must say this, I think there are a lot more problems in the world than someone making someone have preventitive health care.

[otterinbham 0]

In 1984, anybody remember how Winston Smith began his day? Calisthenics under the watchful eye of Big Brother. Seems like Orwell's dystopian vision is closer to becoming reality if flakes like John Edwards get their hands on the levers of power in this country.

Another book you should read is "Brave New World" by Aldous Huxley. This book was written in 1932, but is so eerily reminiscent of today and the proposed future of some politicians that it will make you really think.

Just saying...

Yep. I've read it. And, actually, Aldous Huxley was more on the money than Orwell. Because Huxley contended that people could be better controlled by denying people pleasure, as opposed to Orwell's belief that people were best controlled by inflicting pain.

[bigsixfive 328]

This is the same idea of whether we should be required to wear a seatbelt. Should the government require me to be safe when not wearing my seatbelt doesn't harm anyone else. IMO the answer is yes. Because often times the person who gets hurt from not wearing the seat belt gets health care covered by the tax payers. So, if we make people be safer, we save money and can lower taxes.

Same idea with this. If you require everyone to have preventitive healthcare then we save money because we catch things in early stages. But I must say this, I think there are a lot more problems in the world than someone making someone have preventitive health care.

I agree with you on the seatbelt thing, but healthcare is a much larger and more complicated animal. If the government mandates seatbelts and the price of seatbelts goes up a few bucks, its not that bad, the price of the car goes up $20. If they mandate healthcare and the multitude of costs associated with that go up, now you're talking billions of dollars and screwing with the US economy. Seatbelt construction and operation can be held in check by a few simple tests. Healthcare would get crooked as all get out with kickbacks, bad legislature, and profit funneling going to dishonest people like our main man here, Mr. Edwards.