Via the AP: 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.”
I guess Edwards is looking to put the “big” back into “big government.”
On the one hand, there is little doubt that it is good medicine to engage in preventive care. Yes, women of a certain age should get mammograms every years, and men of certain ages should get prostate exams and so forth. However, to say that it will mandated that everyone will have to do X, Y or Z is a substantial increase in governmental power over the lives of the citizenry.
For that matter, there are some practicalities to be considered here If one doesn’t go to one’s annual whatever, will there be a fine? Will the CDC dispatch agents to your house to force the tests on you? Will there be reminders and free transportation to make sure everyone remembers and gets to their appointments? What if someone managed to avoid their preventative care and then they get sick, will they then be denied care? For example, what if a woman avoids the mammograms and then gets breast cancer, how will the system deal with such a person?
Sphere: Related Content
September 3rd, 2007 at 10:05 am
Edwards Opposes Medical Choice
If John Edwards is elected president, Americans will have no choice but go to the doctor when told.
Democratic presidential hopeful John Edwards said on Sunday that his universal health care proposal would require that Americans go to the doctor for pr…
September 3rd, 2007 at 10:48 am
Preventative care *is* a good idea.
As is regular exercise. I propose that we have government trainers require a 30 minute workout every morning for all citizens, and that everyone be monitored for compliance.
God help you if you buy ice cream.
September 3rd, 2007 at 11:18 am
“What if someone managed to avoid their preventative care and then they get sick, will they then be denied care?”
My suggestion is that they get care, but then have their wages garnished (as with tax cases) and, upon death, assets forfeited up to the amount owed, plus interest and penalties.
In some cases, the money would not be recouped, but it would be better than there being no penalty for attempting to impose the costs of their negligence on everyone else and it would be more humane than denying them care.
September 3rd, 2007 at 11:20 am
Mandatory Preventive Care
Would over weight people be forced to lose weight? What would happen if they do not; would they be sent to prison? What about smokers? Would they be forced to stop smoking?
September 3rd, 2007 at 11:44 am
“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.”
Now those two sentences didn’t make my “big brother alarm” go off. (I did not hear or read the whole speech, however.) The “If you are going to be covered” phrase seems the important factor here. What it said to me was that in order to be covered by the system you have to get preventative care. Therefore, it would seem to answer your question by saying no, if you skip going to the doctor for 20 years and don’t get preventative care, your condition that develops due to lack of preventative care will not be covered. I feel certain he is not planning a health care police force.
September 3rd, 2007 at 12:02 pm
[...] [Democratic presidential pre-candidate John] Edwards backs mandatory preventive care. [...]
September 3rd, 2007 at 12:22 pm
The “big brother alarm” was the first part of the quote above: “It requires that everybody be covered. It requires that everybody get preventive care.”
In lieu of the “If you are going to be covered” (which doesn’t even sound like an option) will we be able to opt out of paying the taxes required to pay for this universal system?
You’re going to hear him backtrack on this any minute now; the guy can’t make reckless statements like this - he will somehow claim that he didn’t really mean it and we somehow misunderstood him.
September 3rd, 2007 at 1:26 pm
[...] Others: QandO, Hot Air, PoliBlog, Outside The Beltway, Protein Wisdom, [...]
September 3rd, 2007 at 3:42 pm
[...] Others: alicublog, Concurring Opinions, Hot Air and Charlie Foxtrot, AltHouse, Captain’s Quarters, PoliBlog (TM), The Reaction, Neptunus Lex, Central Sanity, Betsy’s Page, Six Meat Buffet, Outside The Beltway, Redstate, protein wisdom, THE ASTUTE BLOGGERS, Liberal Values, The Strata-Sphere, The American Pundit, The Democratic Daily, QandO and Upper Left, Technorati Tags: John Edwards, Democrats, Election ‘08, Election 2008, HealthCare [...]
September 3rd, 2007 at 5:07 pm
John Edwards: Two Americas, One Health Care Totalitarian
I’m too drained after my last post to give John Edwards’ outrageous, terrifying and patently un-American (un-Two-American?)
September 3rd, 2007 at 5:15 pm
[...] Others: alicublog, Concurring Opinions, Hot Air and Charlie Foxtrot, AltHouse, Captain’s Quarters, PoliBlog (TM), The Reaction, Neptunus Lex, Central Sanity, Betsy’s Page, Six Meat Buffet, Outside The Beltway, Redstate, protein wisdom, THE ASTUTE BLOGGERS, Liberal Values, The Strata-Sphere, The American Pundit, The Democratic Daily, QandO and Upper Left, [...]
September 3rd, 2007 at 5:18 pm
[...] Most people blogging this are on the rightish side of the issue. Ann Althouse, Right Wing Nut House, Clayton Cramer, Concurring Opinions, PoliBlog, alicublog, Hot Air, Neptunus Lex, Betsy's Page, Six Meat Buffet, Outside The Beltway, Redstate, Charlie Foxtrot, protein wisdom, THE ASTUTE BLOGGERS, QandO. All worth reading. [...]
September 3rd, 2007 at 9:08 pm
hahahahahahahaha
Wow. The FBI has unlimited, point and click ability to monitor your communications. The President has asserted an apparently unchallenged ability to lock you up without counsel if you happen to meet whatever arbitrary criteria he decides upon - forever. The FBI has been flaunting the law with national security letters.
And you’re all worked up about someone telling y’all that you have to go see the doctor?
Big Brother!
My god, no wonder the conservatives are a party of madmen. You can’t even see the nose on the front of your face.
Remember Ruby Ridge!
On to Iran!
September 3rd, 2007 at 9:19 pm
Hal,
If you haven’t noticed, I have been quite critical of the FBI and NSA as well as the general accrual of power under this administration.
What you seem to be saying, however, is that you don’t mind enhanced power in the central government if it serves an end you prefer. That is, btw, the attitude on behalf of the the current administration that has caused some of the issues you cite as problematic.
September 3rd, 2007 at 10:02 pm
What you seem to be saying, however, is that you don’t mind enhanced power in the central government if it serves an end you prefer.
Actually, I said no such thing, or provided any evidence which which you could infer such a conclusion. I was merely laughing my ass off over assertions that mere suggestions from a candidate proposing mandatory checkups was labeled as big brother while we have a real live, honest to “Bob” big brother working overtime.
I mean, really. Perspective.
And yes, I have noticed you being quite critical of the FBI and NSA but I don’t think I’ve ever seen you refer to their unprecedented powers as “big government”. And then there’s the whole “we can torture cause we say we can”. I mean, if that ain’t “big government” writ large I’m going to have to call in the Libertarians for back up.
Seriously. Perspective. Many in the work force already have mandatory and random drug testing - thanks to the “not soft on crime” right wing reactionary laws during the 80’s. I can’t travel on an air plane without being strip searched thanks to the right wing. Heck, it seems like half of the conservative base wants to bring back internment camps - not just for Islamists, but for foreigners of all types who are
taking our purity of essencetaking our low wage jobs.Whether Edward’s idea is a good one is one for debate - and I have no idea where I actually stand on such a suggestion. But in the larger scheme of things - certainly compared to the last 8 years I’ve lived through - in the perspective of right now it’s more akin to laws requiring people have car insurance in order to get a driver’s license or that they wear safety belts while driving or that they have to wear helmets while driving a motorcycle. All of which, I’m sure, is considered to be massively oppressive “big government” by many on the right.
Big government? My lord, compared to Bush and the Republican congress, Edward’s suggestion doesn’t even register on meter.
September 3rd, 2007 at 10:43 pm
This Rented Life
Finally we see what it takes to get the Right Wing of American Politics fired up: John Edwards proposing mandatory health care checkups! Because if there’s anything that gets freedom loving, apple pie eating conservatives up in arms is the…
September 4th, 2007 at 6:32 am
Hal,
I never used the phrase “big brother”–yes, I did use the phrase “big government” although that was a quip. (All laughing one’s ass off aside, you have to admit, such a program would cost money and require manpower, hence it would make government “bigger”–perhaps not the most elegant of terms, but hardly an unreasonable description).
I don’t recall directly using the term “big government” to the Bush administration, although it would be apt in many case. I do know that sense at least the Terri Schiavo situation that I have criticized so-called “small government conservatives” for their blind support of any number of activities by this admin–which is tantamount to applying the “big government” phrase.
Regardless, there are problems to be associated with a program that would require everyone to have preventative care, not that it isn’t a good idea in the abstract.
And seriously, what are you going to do with people who don’t go? When the time comes and they need care, will it be refused?
And there are serious issues of privacy and intrusion into daily life. Steven L. above is being flippant, but has a point–if the government can require medical tests can it also require other behavioral modification to keep costs down? After all, it is simply the government trying to help.