Edwards is creepy.

My fairly liberal Demo paralegal came to my office yesterday and basically told me she thought Edwards is a joke.

Obviously, I had to agree with her.

Did you see links to that story in England where some 5 month pregnant lady has been told that her baby will be taken away as soon as it's born because one pediatrician that has never met her said she's a risk for Manchausen's and *might* hurt her child?

(The first words out of my husband's mouth on hearing about it... "Leave the country!")

Preventative care might sound good but could there really be any result of such a thing other than punishment for not yet committed crimes?

'Are you forced into psychiatric hospitals? It reminds me a lot of V for Vendetta, with people who are unwanted and don't think the right way being forced into "re-education camps" or killed."

Cassy, Cassy..................

You think it was the Labor Party who created
'V'?

Who best personifies Adam Sutler?

Of course, I expect you to say, Edwards.

Holy Moly.

1984

I'd like to know how he intends to have fat people "cured" under his healthcare plan. I'd also like to know what his parameters for "preventive" healthcare are. What's the factor? Are there any mitigating circumstances?

For example, I am a little more chubby than I was when I was in my twenties, but I exercise more, drink less and don't smoke, something nearly all my thinner friends do. Will he deny the smoker/drinker care, or me because I'm not thin? Where does it begin, let alone end????

Of course, knowing government bureaucracy, they will force people to accept only the 'approved' treatment or medications; which will likely be ten years behind the times.

Jay Tea also freaked out about this, earlier. As I pointed out to him, there is nothing - *nothing!* - in Edwards' proposal that makes it compulsory.

This is you projecting your fears onto his program. It's not in it - you're putting it there. Plain as day. Look at it see. This is an opportunity for you to see your own blinders, how your own viewpoint is coloring the information you're receiving.

I'd like to draw your attention to this quote, from your own article:

"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 are going to be in the system.

Not "when". If people feel that regular health checkups are too great an imposition on their freedom, then they are free to not be a part of the health system Edwards is proposing.

They can continue to pay ridiculously high premiums for health insurance that might not cover them, go to HMO's, be healed by televangelists, or whatever the hell else they want to do.

"Mandatory" is the writer's word - it's not Edwards words.

Which also shows that the so-called Liberal Media can get things wrong about liberals too.

This is why, if we end up with some sort of federal single-payer system (which I oppose, BTW), I'd favor financing it with the rather blunt instrument of excise taxes. Better to use a blunt instrument like that than to invite the government that far into your life.

--|PW|--

Jay blogged on this HERE.

Sure, jim, it won't be "mandatory" - until the fiscal reality hits that the government plan will be drawing all the uninsurables, and the costs will become prohibitive without forcing everyone into the system.

As I noted on Jay's post, the whole idea of widespread "preventative medicine" saving money is fanciful. What actually happens is healthy people with no symptoms of anything will jam up the system, using limited resources which would normally be devoted to those who need them, creating shortages and raising costs.

It's just another myth attempting to sell us on a socialist system.

Note also that Britain's system is contemplating limiting coverage for those with "unhealthy lifestyles." Big Brother is watching you . . .

George Orwell's book, Nineteen Eighty-Four, should be required reading for all Americans.
After reading it, when it was first published, it confirmed my belief of what the Socialist FDR was endeavoring to establish in the United States. Every Democratic POTUS since FDR has continued to push for a Socialist State.

If people feel that regular health checkups are too great an imposition on their freedom, then they are free to not be a part of the health system Edwards is proposing.

Uh huh. Can my tax dollars opt out? Sure, you can opt out, but you still have to pay for it.

until the fiscal reality hits that the government plan will be drawing all the uninsurables, and the costs will become prohibitive without forcing everyone into the system.

Well, that's your interpretation of a hypothetical future. That isn't part of Edwards' plan at all.

So, without even getting into the likelihood of this - to say that Edward is planning this, is simply not accurate.

Well Les Nessman, that's a separate question.

Certainly if you aren't using the medical system, you won't have to submit to regular health screenings - which is the original topic.

But separately, sure, you might have to pay some money into health insurance, even if you decide not to use it.

You also pay taxes to local schools, even if you don't have children who attend them. You also pay taxes to a fire department, but might go your entire life without ever having your house on fire. Or pay taxes without ever being held hostage and needing a SWAT team to save you.

But these services also improve the quality of life for the entire nation, and make many things possible that benefit us in indirect ways.

Greater overall healthcare can even mean more jobs - we've all heard of the Toyota plans who picked Canada over the US because the employee healthcare was so much cheaper.

Lower healthcare costs overall means healthier kids, which means better and longer-lived workers, and which also frees up money so kids can grow up better educated and more secure as well.

That's all if a universal health-care system lowers costs while keeping the same level care. I think it will; it seems to for other countries.

But that's the bottom line for me: will it lower costs for the working class, and maintain the same level of care? For other nations, it seems to do this. For that reason, I think it's worth looking at here. If it works, that's what matters.

Don, do you think FDR was a bad president? It seems to me he did a great job pulling us out of the Great Depression, and leading us through most of WW II - and before Social Security, which he brought about, it was a common thing for the elderly to starve to death in poverty.

That all seems worth doing, to me.

Looks like JOHN EDWARDS wants to be our 2nd dictator imposing forced health care and sterialztion WE DONT NEED THIS JERK IN THE WHITEHOUSE HE WILL BE WORSE THE 10 BILL CLINTONS

jim - learn American history. WW2 got us out of the Depression.

jim - your a pie in sky lib - universal health care does not work well anywhere it exists and in the end that is why no how much blathering you Dims do about it, it is not going to happen here. Especially when idiots like Edwards say such idiotic things. Keep it please.

Sorry Michael - who was President then?

Well, Michael - all these other first world nations have longer lives and better infant mortality rates, among many other metrics, than we do - and at the same time they pay less for health care than we do.

So I think they're on to something. And it makes sense to me that not having insurance companies in the middle is a big part of the cost problem for us, at least.

That money could be far better spent healing people, than in hiring people to *deny* treatment because it might cost too much - as only one example.

"which will likely be ten years behind the times."

Actually it is the capitolistic nature of the American medical system that has been the cause of most medical advances in the world today. If the Democrats take control and impose socialized medicine on us all, the medical system will stagnate and 100 years from now (if anyone's still alive) we will still have the same medicines and treatments we have available to day and nothing more. Actully it will probabaly be even less advanced then it is today.

If there were no socialists or Democrats in this world (or at least none with political power in the US), the medicines and treatments of 100 years from now will make today's medicines and treatements look like those of the late 1800's by comparison.

jim - your so cute - FDR's policies did not get us out of the Depression - a war that came along and a little thing called Pearl Harbor(was FDR behind that?)did. FDR just happen to be President...just like Bush was with 9/11. So please spare us socialistic nonsense about health care, etc...

I suggest checking here for a good primer on the health care reform debate.

--|PW|--

#14 Jim
The answer to your question is Yes.
You seem to be under the misconseption that FDR pulled us out of the Great Depression. The War is what ended the Depression. FDR was the reason the Depression lasted 13 years. His relief programs were up to 40% of the GDP. As far as the war was concerned, I will admit that he was the last Democratic POTUS to allow the US Military to fight and WIN a war.
So that I don't go on a rant about that man, may I suggest that you might do some research on him. Starting point might be Wikipedia "Great Depression".
I remember the day that he died. I was even annoyed that they interrupted the Lone Ranger radio program to announce his death.

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

Notice he used the word *everybody* twice.

This won't work (well it won't work *anyway* but...) unless *everybody* is part of the system. Everyone pays in. Everyone is covered.

Because if you opt out and get sick... are they going to turn you away? If you opt out and are in a car accident and don't have insurance do they let you bleed out on the pavement?

No. They don't.

Just like NOW anyone who needs medical care can go to the hospital and get it. NOW the private health care system absorbs the cost of those people by billing the rest of us.

The whole thing about preventative care is forcing people to go to the doctor before they are desperately ill. Since we will NOT turn away the cancer patient who went undiagnosed for years and years and we will not turn away anyone with lifestyle related illnesses preventative care can ONLY be talking about EVERYBODY.

I'd be far more interested if in Edwards brave new world of health care patients will be prevented from suing government providers.

Don, do you think FDR was a bad president? It seems to me he did a great job pulling us out of the Great Depression, and leading us through most of WW II - and before Social Security, which he brought about, it was a common thing for the elderly to starve to death in poverty.

Unbelievable jim. FDR lengthened the Great Depression with government intervention that extended the length of the depression in the United States compared to other industrialized nations around the world during the same period. FDR promised to keep the US out of WWII even as he was secretly conspiring to get us into it - hardly "leadership". And FDR's conduct of the war was incompetent and resulted in thousands if not tens of thousands of unnecessary casualties to the US in the Pacific, especially the Phillippines, much less places like North Africa.

But separately, sure, you might have to pay some money into health insurance, even if you decide not to use it.

Great. Gov't mandated socialized medicine. That I don't want. But I still have to pay for. That's good to know.

Well, Michael, SPQR and Don - I guess I'm just going to have to agree to disagree with your positions re: FDR and the great depression.

It would appear that most historians tend to agree with me, so I feel rather comfortable.

http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2007/01/the_new_deal_an.html

A quick post; happy to dig into this deeper if need be.

Hey Les - if I can stop paying for this crap occupation of Iraq but still pay for the necessary occupation of Afghanistan, you can choose not to pay for and receive Universal health care.

Deal?

Deal?

No deal. Waging wars is a legitimate and millenia-old function of gov't. I believe our Constitution makes mention of how we handle the question of war.

Socialized medicine is another welfare program, writ large. No thanks. The Feds have no business in my choice of health care.

Keep your hands off my uterus! or something like that..

Yep we don't want govt interfering with our health..sure would be like 1984...
Of course folks here have no problem with our govt monitoring our e-mails or what sites we visit if we happen to type certain words....or they can enter our homes without our knowledge without court permission..or they could force Libraries to give up what books we check out...
Our nation has ceded our 4th amendment rights..
habeas corpus disappearing...we actually debate when torture is appropriate...all that is no problem...but that Edwards..now there is a threat....sheesh..
In my 20's I was a Republican because I felt that was the Party that would protect our rights..

"most economists..." what a crock. Given your silly viewpoints, it appears you just sponge off other people's silly viewponts. Kind of parasitical don'cha think? Very liberal though.

"(was FDR behind that?)"

LOL. There're people like jim & the wizblue authors for every war.

If you're not a terrorist, nogo, there's no need to worry about things like that. For crying out loud, it's not like George Bush is gonna break your door down and confiscate your bong.

On the other hand, if you are a terrorist, then I'm glad you have to worry about things like that.

Jim, first you seem to not understand the difference between historians and economists, second your link does not even say what you think it says, third the source you cite is not exactly a majoritarian economist. And Brad DeLong? LOL.

Nogo, what you decry is not happening. I've gotten very tired of the fraudulent claims of all the many rights that the Bush administration is supposedly infringing.

Hi...as a former subject of the NHS in Britain, I'd like to say...stay the f--k as far away from Socialised Medicine as you can.

Otherwise, you'll be begging for the glory days of HMOs.

Or take a look at military hospitals.

In some ways they're good. In other ways not so good.

My husband spent months on rotating "quarters" while the doctor refused to get his herniated disks diagnosed. (Three days off work with bed rest and muscle relaxers... a week back at work... three days "quarters"... a week back at work... three days "quarters"... etc.) Went to a different military hospital and doctor while on leave... "Sorry, can't admit you have a problem because then I'd have to classify you as (whatever) and I'm not going to." It finally took taking him to a civilian doctor when we were physically far enough away from the nearest military hospital to actually get a freaking MRI. We took the civilian MRI and doctor's report with us when we PCS'd to the Philippines where, praise GOD, they had a neurosurgeon on staff. My husband was in such bad shape he didn't even in-process to his new assignment before he was having back surgery and spent 14 days in the hospital for it.

When it comes down to it the Air Force has *fabulous* hospitals, doctors and surgeons. But they also have *rules* just as any government run system will have. There are limited choices and *very* limited ability to take yourself elsewhere if you're not getting the care you need.

No... doing it *better* or *right* isn't going to solve the problems. The problems are inherent in any system that huge that has to manage care at that level.

Oh... I *liked* having babies in the Air Force but I'm sure some would not at all. I saw a different provider, doctor or midwife, every visit. Some were great. Some not so much but at least I wasn't stuck with a bad one. When I went into labor the person who delivered my baby was the doctor on duty who I may have never even met before. There weren't choices between sedated and no-drugs. Everyone got the same, and I'll admit that it was more "up to date" than one of the civilian hospitals I gave birth in. But someone else decided policy and that policy was uniformly implemented and that's what everyone got. No choice.

Trying to pay for medical care might be difficult but I've far more control now, far more autonomy and influence on my own care than with a "free" system that had doctors refusing to even do a CAT scan or MRI to diagnose a serious problem that would require serious treatment.

But DANG was it easy to go get preventative care and immunizations.

When it comes down to it the Air Force has *fabulous* hospitals, doctors and surgeons. But they also have *rules* just as any government run system will have.

Yep. And mil hospitals are military people treating other military people. In other words, generally honorable people treating other generally honorable people. Possibly a certain level of respect by all involved.

Now imaging gov't hospital treating the general public. Hah! Does anyone think there is going to be any TLC from a gov't flunky to a welfare queen, crack addict, or average schmoo?

"It reminds me a lot of V for Vendetta, with people who are unwanted and don't think the right way being forced into "re-education camps" or killed."

The irony here is that the UK presented in "V" is a lefty's stereotypical right-wing facist dictatorship... while meanwhile, the real UK slides closer by the day.

No deal. Waging wars is a legitimate and millenia-old function of gov't. I believe our Constitution makes mention of how we handle the question of war.

Well then Les, there's your answer.

If we shouldn't be able to pick and choose what wars we pay for as taxpayers, then we shouldn't be able to pick and choose what other government initiatives we pay for as taxpayers.

If you're not a terrorist, nogo, there's no need to worry about things like that.

Really?

Then let's postulate your worst nightmare happens, and Hillary Clinton becomes President.

Are you comfortable with President Hillary Clinton being able to spy on anyone she wants, for any reason, without having to even give a reason to anybody who isn't her employee in the Executive Branch?

And then, are you comfortable with President Hillary Clinton being able to imprison and torture anyone she wants, for any length of time that she wants, for any reason she wants? Or no reason? That all she has to *claim* is the prisoner is in some way linked to terrorists?

And the prisoner has no right to even *see* the evidence or accusations against them? To even know what they're being charged with?

No President, no matter how trustworthy we think they are, should *ever* have that amount of power. Even if we can trust them, what about the *next* President who comes after?

Just like NOW anyone who needs medical care can go to the hospital and get it. NOW the private health care system absorbs the cost of those people by billing the rest of us.

The source of the cost of that is not the uninsured patients. It's the private health insurance companies, which bilk every possible dollar they can out of every angle in the entire system, a net loss - without adding one single bit of value.

And you're wrong besides - anyone who needs *emergency* care can go get it - theoretically. Still it's a fact of life that ambulance drivers conduct the "wallet biopsy" of checking the victim's health insurance, and take 'em to a corresponding hospital.

Besides that, people who have chronic illness or even long-term recovery are in a different situation entirely. If they don't have insurance that will cover it, or a house to mortgage or some other option, they likely will *not* get the care they need, and so -

a) their costs don't impact everyone elses
b) they are screwed, whereas in other countries they are cared for

Jim gives us more of his fantasies:

Are you comfortable with President Hillary Clinton being able to spy on anyone she wants, for any reason, without having to even give a reason to anybody who isn't her employee in the Executive Branch?

And then, are you comfortable with President Hillary Clinton being able to imprison and torture anyone she wants, for any length of time that she wants, for any reason she wants? Or no reason? That all she has to *claim* is the prisoner is in some way linked to terrorists?

And the prisoner has no right to even *see* the evidence or accusations against them? To even know what they're being charged with?

The bottom line jim is that I for one do want people like you telling me
what my health care options are. Fix your own life and leave the rest of us alone. If you want "universal" heath care move to Cuba...sounds like your kind of place.

SPQR, as we both know, the first scenario I describe refers to warrantless wiretapping.

And the second situation, as we both know, refers to the situation of prisoners being in Guantanamo.

If you're actually going to pay attention to citations, I will go and find the exact citations for every single one of those things I cited.

All I ask is that if I post them, you actually read them and look at them.