I really wish that this guy had a chance.
I know that the IRS makes new faiths fill out forms, but are there any other Federal hoops that I'd have to jump through?
By Moe Lane Posted in 2008 — Comments (49) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
No, really. It's a shame that John Edwards is marking time until his rejection by his Party. You see, I'm quite keen to have our eventual candidate run against a man who'd effectively outlaw the Amish from practicing their religion:
Edwards backs mandatory 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.
Read on.
Via Darleen of Protein Wisdom, who calls this state nannyism. Which is, I suppose, a nicer phrase than "religious bigotry": unless, of course, Playstation Johnny is ready to let Amish, Christian Scientists, and Jehovah's Witnesses practice their faith in peace. In that case, I will graciously permit people to join the new faith I just started. It's called the First Church by* Moe Lane, and its primary dogma is: Thou Shalt Not Let Pandering Idiots Tell You When To See A Doctor.
I'm thinking a $25 per year dues offering. Too much? After all, you're buying peace of mind, here.
Moe
PS: Whoever's running Edwards: dude, you have got to learn to get this guy's speeches online ASAP.
*Calling it First Church of Moe Lane seems vaguely blasphemous, after all.
« Dueling June Obama fundraising claims? — Comments (2) | Thompson Dares Utter "THAT" Phrase — Comments (12) »
I really wish that this guy had a chance. 49 Comments (0 topical, 49 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
...even if it is wrong on so many levels. It is, however, not a stretch to think that, if the government is paying for your health care, that they can set the terms by which it is given. Just wonder how, in the scheme of rationing care typical of most state-managed health care systems, how much of a waiting list this will create for anything that isn't said preventative care (to say nothing of these regular visits... might we have to schedule the next one before we go in for the current one?).
The last time I saw a doctor of any sort was my dentist, two years ago... and, barring him, my ophthalmologist five and a half years ago (haven't seen my general practitioner in about eight years; heck, the old codger no longer has a medical license). However, under Edwards' system, I'd probably be completely cut loose from the government system for not playing by his rules.
That or Dr. Ron, my dentist, is going to slap a blood pressure cuff on me the next time he takes X-rays (which, I'm sure, will give such a WONDERFUL reading...).
"I don't understand why the same newspaper commentators who bemoan the terrible education given to poor people are always so eager to have those poor people get out and vote." - P.J. O'Rourke
HTML Help Central for Red Staters
I voted Harry Browne in 2000, but will never vote Ron Paul.
We are probably better off in the general spending any primary campaign money not on any Rep primary candidate but on Edwards or Paul to make sure they are the Dem candidate.
Ask not what you can do for your country, ask what your country can do for you. Washington Elected Elite
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
There seem to be plenty of times someone needs to remind Dr. Paul of that, however.
-------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.
and the soft humming of the Horst Wessel Song. A little poetic license and why not since that's what is always thrown our way.
Except for them it's closer to the truth, perhaps the reason why they use it so much, a transference of their own darker obsessions.
The second day after Hillary dropped her health care mess in our laps the NY Times reported it contained ten year jail sentences for recalcitrant individualists who would dare go outside her plan, the sort of thing reserved for drug smugglers and for whom Hillary probably has warmer feelings.
George Mitchell, recognizing a suicide pill when he saw one, scrubbed it into oblivion, and liberals denied it was ever there, just one of the things they do to a reality they profess to own.
I can't help wondering just how far these tugs would go if given the opportunity.
"a man's admiration for absolute government is proportinate to the contempt he feels for those around him". Tocqueville
"a man's admiration for absolute government is proportinate to the contempt he feels for those around him". Tocqueville
Let me get this straight - the federal government has no right to interfere with an abortion because of a sacred (if unwritten) right to privacy, but the federal government has a right to dictate mandatory preventative care?
What am I missing?
_____________________________________
"You can't save the Earth unless you're willing to make other people sacrifice" - Scott Adams (speaking through Dogbert)
but this doesn't seem all that Draconian to me (an admitted liberal).
I have to take my car for an emissions test and a vehicle inspection every so often, and I don't even get anything free out of the deal. Perhaps many conservatives don't like mandated vehicle inspections either, though.
It seems to me that if the government is going to go into the business of offering "free" health insurance, then it has to mandate regular checkups jus to keep the cost from ballooning beyond control. Every analysis of the problem I've seen says that one of the easiest ways for America to save money on our healthcare (whether it stays private or becomes public) is to catch serious diseases early when they are cheapest to treat.
At least Edwards (who once again, is by far my least favorite of the big three Dems running), is being honest about what government subsidized healthcare would entail. I, personally, have no problem with having to go see the doctor once a year or so for a checkup, since I already do anyway; I also support government subsidized healthcare. I do think that people should know what the trade-offs for changing the current system are before they decide whether they support it as well, though.
I, personally, have no problem with having to go see the doctor once a year or so for a checkup, since I already do anyway
BUT, if you held strong religious beliefs that said you should NOT go to that doctor -- or if you had some other philosophical reasons for not participating, you believe that you should still be COMPELLED to participate?
Interesting. I certainly hope that exam involves deep body cavity searches (for disease purposes)...heh!
but I'm not sure that it's really a valid objection to the system. We have to face the religious objection all the time.
Can snake-handlers be arrested if their children die of snake bites? Can we force Islamic fundamentalists to take off their burkas? This particular problem (i.e. medicine v. religion) has been an ongoing one, especially with the Christian Scientists and their refusal to treat their children with traditional medicine.
Of course any mandated doctor's visits will be challenged by some groups, exceptions will be granted, others won't, and the world will go on. I hardly see it as a fatal flaw to Edwards' plan.
the government, without probable cause I have committed a crime, can force me to allow a govt agent doctor take blood from me and put their finger up me is
brave new worldly
and
Un_American
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson
The doctors would remain private practitioners, just as they are now. The only difference is that the government would either pay your insurance bills or replace the insurance company altogether.
The idea that healthcare is currently just between a person and their doctor is just not accurate. Whether we like it or not, we're either going to have a guy in a cubicle halfway across the country telling a doctor what he can and can't do or we're going to have a government bureaucracy telling you what hoops you have to jump through to maintain your government subsidized plan. If the biggest hoop is a mandatory annual checkup, it sounds a heck of a lot better than what we currently have to put up with from private insurance companies.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson
to getting a physical, then Edwards plan isn't the one for you. I can't see the nation getting all up in arms about it, though.
It's sort of like the seatbelt law opposition. I never understood why some people (although a pretty small minority) are so opposed to being required to wear a seatbelt. It's pretty much common sense anyway.
Even stranger to me is that most of the anti-seatbelt law folks are also the pro-outlawing marijuana folks...
I suppose everyone has their issue, though.
I would rank the Cannibus prohibition more on par with the seat belt requirement.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson
It's sort of like the seatbelt law opposition. I never understood why some people (although a pretty small minority) are so opposed to being required to wear a seatbelt. It's pretty much common sense anyway.
I doubt many have an objection to WEARING a seatbelt. The issue is having the government FORCE you to do it.
This is where the "smaller government" belief comes in. Just because it is the right thing to do doesn't necessarily mean we need a law to make everyone do it.
Oh, and why is it that so many of the pro-marijuana folks are anti-tobacco?
When the only tool you own is a hammer, every problem begins to resemble a nail. -- Abraham Maslow
It seems to me that if the government is going to go into the business of offering "free" health insurance, then it has to mandate regular checkups jus to keep the cost from ballooning beyond control.
If you follow this line of reasoning to it's idiotic extreme (not all that far a trip in this case, and it's usually where the beaurocracy ends up), can you name a single aspect of your life that the government wouldn't have the right to dictate to you?
What and how much you eat, what jobs you can take, who you can sleep with, what you can listen to, all of these can be shown to have an impact on your health. Just how much control do you want to give over to the government?
I do think that people should know what the trade-offs for changing the current system are before they decide whether they support it as well, though.
How about this - the number of people WITH health insurance has never been higher. All of these Democratic concerns about the 5% or so that aren't covered by our current system never seem to mention the fact that 95% of us are going to be totally screwed by these proposals.
_______________________________-
"You can't save the Earth unless you're willing to make other people sacrifice" - Scott Adams (speaking through Dogbert)
The government can only dictate as much as the citizenry lets it. I seriously doubt we'll be looking at San Angeles (cf. Demolition Man) any time soon. Some people (I don't know if most or not) would be willing to get annual checkups for "free" healthcare. I doubt many would be willing to let the government tell them what to eat for the same.
Also, the number of unisured in America, at least according to the latest census data, is 15.9%, not 5%. The average uninsured rate from 1987-1998 was 12.9%. It peaked in 1998 at 16.3% dropped to 14.2% in 2000, then began to climb again (see especially pages pages 20 and following of the pdf linked above).
What percentage of the other 84.1% of us who have insurance would rather have government insurance than their current private package, I don't know. That's the number that will ultimately decide if the system stays like it is or changes.
The last few decades are full of examples of liberal policies leading to exactly the slippery slope consequences they were warned of in the beginning, so when a liberal dismisses a slippery slope on that basis, I get a lot more worried.
Want an example? Welfare. What's worse is that it was one of their own best minds (Daniel Patrick Moynihan) who raised the alarm of the disastrous consequences of making it more financially advantageous to young poor women to have and raise a child in a fatherless home than in one with a father. He was dismissed as a reactionary for bringing up "impossible" slippery slopes and a racist to boot in some quarters.
Another one? Rent control. Now San Francisco, the city that is the pride of American liberalism, is initiating programs to combat "black flight", because not many black people can afford to live there and not many developers are keen to build houses where they won't get a return on their investment.
As for Universal Healthcare, this is what applies;
Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.
I remember the Left intoning this whenever the Terrorist Surveillance Program was brought up. But I believe it is far more apt in this situation. John Edwards just stated that Universal healthcare would need you to let go of your freedom over your own health for the apparent safety of having the "right" to being taken care of when you fall sick.
If one has a right to healthcare, then that means one has a right to not just drugs and treatments, hospital beds, etc. but also to doctors, nurses, specialists and other practitioners in medicine. They (human beings all) become resources, and if you think that does not mean the government would not assume the power to tell them where they would work, how long they would work and how much they'll take home, then you're kidding yourself.
The Left has not yet found a way around the law of supply and demand. As every other nation with "free" healthcare is beginning to realize, if something is free, use of it goes up, and at some point in time, they would need to find a way to control costs, which would mean finding a way of excluding people, and increasing supply of it (i.e. drugs, doctors). Imposing some number of hours/days/weeks/months of service in the "system" for all doctors and nurses as a price to be paid for their continued ability to practice medicine is not inconceivable.
In England, smokers, the aged, the obese, etc. were/are considered for being put on a list of folks who can routinely be refused treatment. In other words, there need not be any threat of jail or being fined for the government to take control of your life. It would just need for you to know that being a few pounds overweight could mean that you would be abandoned in the Emergency Room in favor of someone in less critical condition, who happens to have the politically correct BMI.
George W. Bush: He's A Folder ... Not A Fighter.
If I don't like taking my car for emissions tests, I don't have to own a car. I do, however, have to keep my body...as a general rule.
Edwards said participation is mandatory. What am I supposed to do if I don't want to go to the doctor on the goverment's schedule? Apparantly I can't own my own insurance.
In addition, what happened to me being in control of my own body and making my own decisions?
When the only tool you own is a hammer, every problem begins to resemble a nail. -- Abraham Maslow
at least under Edwards' plan. His plan actually sounds a lot like Mitt's Massachusetts plan.
I don't know whether he would mandate regular checkups for those who choose to keep private insurance. I suppose that would depend on whether you took government money to help subsidize it.
America will always have private healthcare for those willing to pay for it, just like we have private security officers in addition to a public police force.
If I can opt out of his plan, why does he say this:
"It requires that everybody be covered."
When the only tool you own is a hammer, every problem begins to resemble a nail. -- Abraham Maslow
A) You show that you have private coverage.
B) You have some kind of government plan.
or
C) You have private coverage, but the government pays part of your premium.
No one is saying that you can't have your own private coverage; you just can't opt to have no coverage at all. Sort of like the way your kids have to go to school, but a person can decline the public education that they are already paying for in favor of private school or homeschool.
But I am not too comfortable with the slope I'd be standing on.
When the only tool you own is a hammer, every problem begins to resemble a nail. -- Abraham Maslow
something like this? There's only two ways.
1. If you don't get preventative care, you aren't entitled to any other type of care.
We know this won't happen. That would be like saying "if you don't work, you shouldn't eat". In John Edwards' world, everyone eats whether they want to work or not. That leaves..
2. Checkup enforcement. Someone from the government comes to your house and drags you to the doctor for a checkup.
I have no question that Edwards would have no problem with this whatsoever. This guy is really scary...and I don't think a lot of people realize how scary he is.
-imwithfred-
3: If you don't get your regular checkup you are issued a fine, tied to your drivers license registration or something similar, just like parking tickets. If you want your license renewed, you get your physical and pay the fine.
There is a broad and gaping gap between no enforcement at all and 1984.
...did we all sign off on universal health care being a right, let alone an obligation?
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
I personally think we should, but currently there is no right to healthcare of which I am aware.
The question is do Americans want it to be a right. Like all rights, that one will come with responsibilities. If/When enough Americans decide that healthcare should be a right, then it will be, and the obligations that come with it will follow.
Like I said, I'd like to see healthcare considered a right to all American citizens. The way for that to happen is for more people to agree with me. If they don't, that's fine. Like I said above, I already have insurance and get physicals on a regular basis.
Americans will always have the government that want and it will do exactly as much as they would like it to do. If it does more or less, people lose elections, and that changes fairly quickly.
Sounds a bit utilitarian to me. Not to invoke a popular political cliché by citing the founding fathers as agreeing with me, but they designed the government around the constitution specifically so that people wouldn't callously vote away their own rights. (You know, kind of like they do every election.) Under utilitarianist ideas, one can say that if the country votes to outlaw homosexuality, that would be fine--after all, there are more of us than there are of them! I don't think that you would be in agreement with this policy, and neither am I. As Thomas Jefferson put it, "[The purpose of a written constitution is] to bind up the several branches of government by certain laws, which, when they transgress, their acts shall become nullities; to render unnecessary an appeal to the people, or in other words a rebellion, on every infraction of their rights, on the peril that their acquiescence shall be construed into an intention to surrender those rights." -- Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia Q.XIII, 1782. The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, (Memorial Edition) Lipscomb and Bergh, editors, ME 2:178 Or perhaps something a little more related to the subject at hand: "Were we directed from Washington when to sow, and when to reap, we should soon want bread." -- Thomas Jefferson, Autobiography, 1821 (I like Jefferson quotes =) ) Once you see universal healthcare and other liberal ideas come into their own in the United States, you will see the subsequent curtailing of our freedoms.
I would leave the country and give up my citizenship if this policy were even to pass a committee in Congress. I am not joking when I say that.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson
If you're trying to dodge universal healthcare, Belarus would be my nation of choice. Perhaps you have another you'd prefer, here's a map to help you decide. Not a lot of winners out there, though, if I do say so myself.
HTML Help Central for Red Staters
I voted Harry Browne in 2000, but will never vote Ron Paul.
That was the sound of the point flying over your head at Mach 2.
HTML Help Central for Red Staters
I voted Harry Browne in 2000, but will never vote Ron Paul.
I'm well aware I couldn't easily dodge the funding and taxation. I simply will not go where I am forced to see a doctor.
Even Ron Paul could beat this guy, given this plan, without breaking a sweat...
HTML Help Central for Red Staters
I voted Harry Browne in 2000, but will never vote Ron Paul.
this would be another government program that anyone, given the opportunity and the means, would rather buy out of than stay in. We already pay many taxes for public schools and homeschool our three children, and now we'll pay do the same for healthcare. Now, theoretically, private insurance rates should go down, as would over-the-counter healthcare prices, because hospitals would no longer have to cover those who cannot pay by charging more to the uninsured.
Required reading for all legislators should be Thomas Sowell's Applied Economics, Thinking Beyond Stage One. This book explains the free market system so even lawyers can understand it, examining individual issues such as healthcare, labor, insurance, and housing. Legislators most often only look at stage one, and not the long term effects of their policies and decisions. To them, the only long term effect they see is re-election, not a solid economy for the USA.
Also, Sowell's Basic Economics (2007) is next on my reading list.
My kinda newbie!
Yeah! Public education is a good example -- but the V.A. is even better! A couple veterans I was talking to have been told AT THE VA HOSPITAL come here for the little stuff, but if you get anything serious -- go to a real hospital!
Whereas Edwards proposes the Federal government as the guarantor of health care benefits, Romney is proposing a plan that lets the states be the laboratory for innovation and health care ideas. Edwards will impose government controls, Romney offers consumer choices. Most Americans would prefer some choices in health care plans and payments. A brief summary of his plan can be found at http://mittromney.com/News/Press-Releases/Policy_Briefing_Health_Care
NRO has some opinion about it here .
Give me choices over Govt. mandates anyday.
I'm not entirely dismissive of the points that CrabCakes has raised in defense of the proposal. If compulsory education (public, private, or home) is okay, then - in theory - compulsory healthcare doesn't sound that crazy.
But . . . how does it work when doctors don't always agree on what "good" preventative care entails? Example: I've always had high cholesterol. A few years back, one doctor practically insisted that I go on statins for the rest of my life. Being 27 at the time, I balked. Since then, I've learned that other doctors think statins are a bad idea. What would "compulsory" healthcare require in a case like mine - and who would decide, it, and how?
What would "compulsory" healthcare require in a case like mine - and who would decide, it, and how?
Homeschooling became more popular because compulsory education starting doing exactly what you ask about healthcare.
Who should teach kids about sex?
What should kids be told about homosexuality?
What is the stance on the various religions?
What qualifies a child to be promoted to the next grade?
As the governments began mandating what would be taught and what wouldn't...more parents decided their children deserved better.
When the only tool you own is a hammer, every problem begins to resemble a nail. -- Abraham Maslow
Not only does it separate him from the other presidential hopefuls on a key issue, but, hey, you can't sue for malpractice if you don't visit the practice.