Sunday, September 02, 2007

Big Brother is diagnosing you

Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards cares about us so much, he says the government should make us visit the doctor. Whether we want to or not.

Speaking of his universal health care proposal, he says (emphasis mine), "It requires that everybody be covered. It requires that everybody get preventive care. 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."

All hail the wise and benevolent government masters!

Now here's a link to the complete text of the United States Constitution. Can somebody please find where it states the government's role in mandating medical care? Or hell, here's the Bill of Rights. Anything in there about the right to free health care? Anything?

This, of course, is another example of why I will never vote Democrat, despite how much I increasingly loathe the Republicans.


Megs said...

Fiscally, it makes sense. Right now we, all the taxpayers, are paying millions of dollars every year in medical bills for people who had preventable illnesses, had they been able to access preventative healthcare. It may not be going about it in the right way, but basically health care is a huge privilege (one that a lot of Americans are mission out on right now). In return for the privilege, you might be expected to go to the doctor once a year to make sure that you're not abusing the privilege. You don't have the right to drive a car, either. It's a privilege. In order to do it, you have to meet certain requirements. Of course there is the argument that you can also choose not to drive or get a license if you don't want to, which I understand is your main argument here. But the difference is that your decision not to get a license will not cost me anything, whereas your decision not to go to the doctor for 20 years may cost taxpayers millions of dollars in treatment. So where is the middle ground? What is the compromise?

Josh said...

The compromise is that the government shouldn't be paying for everybody's health care in the first place.

Megs said...

But that's not a compromise. Do you mean that the government shouldn't be paying for ANYbody's health care?

Josh said...

No, I said they shouldn't pay for everybody's. We should provide for people who truly can't afford it (especially children), but that number is far less than "universal" advocates would have you believe.

Megs said...

How do you determing "truly can't afford it", as opposed to "should be able to ante up"? The problem is that people who can afford preventative visits often don't make them because they feel fine. Then, when they get to feeling ill and find out there is something majorly wrong, it is a big deal to get treatment, and at that stage they "truly can't afford it".

Josh said...

We need to better educate people on the importance of health insurance. If one chooses not to get it, however, they shouldn't be able to invade the taxpayers' pockets when something unforeseen happens. One's apathy or unwillingness to prepare should not entitle them to a right to other peoples' money. This continued training of people to rely solely on the government only serves to weaken them.

Dennis said...

Did Edwards say anything about what happens after the "required" coverage and preventative care results in your diagnosis of cancer, diabetes,etc and then you you have to wait several weeks or months for the necessary surgery that today can be completed in hours or days? I, personally, don't understand why ANYONE would want government in control of our healthcare. There is not program our government controls that wouldn't be run better in the hands of private companies.

Dennis said...

Edwards is probably also going to "require" all future mortgages come from "authorized" lenders:

Now, the Wall Street Journal reports,

As a presidential candidate, Democrat John Edwards has regularly attacked subprime lenders, particularly those that have filed foreclosure suits against victims of Hurricane Katrina. But as an investor, Mr. Edwards has ties to lenders foreclosing on Katrina victims.

The Wall Street Journal has identified 34 New Orleans homes whose owners have faced foreclosure suits from subprime-lending units of Fortress Investment Group LLC. Mr. Edwards has about $16 million invested in Fortress funds, according to a campaign aide who confirmed a more general Federal Election Commission report. Mr. Edwards worked for Fortress, a publicly held private-equity fund, from late 2005 through ... WSJ

This means that as much as half of John Edwards' fortune is invested in a sub-prime lender that has taken advantage of people and then taken their homes in New Orleans.