Edwards Says an Apple a Day Won't Do

T

Timshel

New member
A logical step, I guess, in healthcare socialism.

Not only does he want to use the force of government to pay for medical care, but he wants to force you to go to the doctor.

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

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."
 
Sounds fine. Someone can choose not to avail themselves of the government-funded healthcare. If they do want the government to foot the bill, they have to do it the governments way - like driving. Preventative care will save lots of money and lots of lives.

Go Edwards.
 
Oh, the horror! Going to the doctor once a year for a physical!

Doesn't sound like much of a burden to me. It actually makes good economic sense. People who blow off preventative healthcare, cost the rest of us money - through increased healthcare costs and premiums.

A universal healthcare system requires shared responsibility. If you're going to require employer to provide healthcare insurance (which edwards plan does), you have to reduce their cost by requiring people to get preventative healthcare. Give both employers and employees shared responsibility. One of the biggest costs of our current system, is that it focuses on treatment, and not prevention.

Oh, and no one is going to jail if the refuse to go to the doctor. Edwards plan simply rewards those who go for preventative checkups, and sign up for healthy living plans, with lower premiums. If one is too fucking lazy to go to the doctor once a year, they'll pay higher premiums. That's the sanction. They're not going to be arrested. Makes sense to me.
 
Like I said a logical step. When this fails to control costs, what will be the next step? Maybe more food nannyism or why not force people to go the gym. More likely it will collapse as it has in Europe. As Hayek/Mises showed, socialism can't work and can only lead to heavy handed authoratarianism.
 
ib1yysguy said:
Fallacy of the slippery slope.
Click to expand...
Is the "slippery slope" always a fallacy?

It certainly wasn't with the SS number. They promised and swore it would never be used as identification. In fact, mine still says that it shouldn't be used as such, yet it is one of the forms of identification that you must show to get a job.
 
USC, what a stupid comment. No, Hillary Care, never existed clearly the point was that that is what it proposed.

ib, except it is no fallacy. We have seen it play out over and over. The real fallacy is yours, that government healthcare services are freely chosen. But no one will be permitted to choose whether or not they pay the taxes that will fund it. Further, the government will have crowded out the market (IF they do not outlaw it).

So much for the socialists Dems notion of a "right to healthcare." You have a "right" to it so long as you follow the dictates of the bureaurats.
 
Damocles said:
Is the "slippery slope" always a fallacy?
Click to expand...
Yes, it is always a logical fallacy. This doesn't mean that every conclusion drawn from that fallacy is necessarily incorrect, merely that the "slippery slope" argument alone isn't sufficient to demonstrate anything.
 
OrnotBitwise said:
Yes, it is always a logical fallacy. This doesn't mean that every conclusion drawn from that fallacy is necessarily incorrect, merely that the "slippery slope" argument alone isn't sufficient to demonstrate anything.
Click to expand...
I would point out all prognostications on the war would have been a part of that fallacy. That the conclusion was correct would make nothing about it.

Proposing a conclusion from past experience with the government is not a fallacy, and is not part of the slippery slope fallacy. Those that do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it. When somebody points out that in the past, this has led to a much different conclusion than originally proposed, they are not always delving into the "slippery slope fallacy".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top