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.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
What else will he not allow us to "choose" to do, or not to do?
2007-09-02 14:15:34 · 22 answers · asked by Yak Rider 7 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Wow, that man is getting desperate.
"You can't NOT brush your teeth. We'll know, and we'll MAKE you brush them. Additionally, you can't NOT eat all your vegetables. We'll be watching you!!"
1984 anyone?
2007-09-02 14:24:16 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 6⤊ 2⤋
Their are several problems with this. First, who is going to pay for the national health care? I'm not in favor of raising our taxes. Second, what doctors and medical facilities are willing to charge lower rates? A lot of government services are paid lower then going rate. Third, every government service we have, has suffered from scams. Let's have another service to allow the criminals to abuse.
And, last, but not least, how will this be enforced? Let's say you go to the doctor and you are diagnosed with high cholesterol. You are given instructions to reduce the intake of red meats and fried products. No more Big Macs and fries. Are you telling me that people would agree to the government telling you what you can eat? And, how much you can eat? Or, when you can eat? And, if you do not conform to the rules of the game, then you do not have any right to any medical treatment? Why not pass a law, that says the government decides what we do, wear, work, and think. If a person is found guilty of breaking this law, they are escorted behind the courthouse and shot. I think the founding fathers would be thrilled to discover that their efforts lead a country of the free to a country of dictatorship or slavery.
2007-09-02 15:10:28 · answer #2 · answered by jack-copeland@sbcglobal.net 4 · 3⤊ 2⤋
I guess you can twist anything & make it sound bad if you try hard enough! All he is saying is that for a Universal Health plan to really work we who may choose to be on it would have to do our part by getting preventive care. Everyone should get a check up at least yearly, so what is so wrong with that? By getting preventive care I found my cancer early & am alive because of having the sense to do so. There are other reasons to have yearly check-ups, & I see no reason for anyone resenting his having made this a stipulation in his health care plan. No one is made to go on the Universal Health care plan, it's a choice for those who cannot afford their own health care insurance. I think this is a wise offer to those most in need of assistance.
2007-09-02 15:18:46 · answer #3 · answered by geegee 6 · 0⤊ 2⤋
no longer John Edwards as a results of fact CNN thinks a woman or a black candidate makes juicier headlines. additionally, people who call him a Breck female or a "transsexual", heavily, improve up. John Edwards comes out with a well-being care plan, his haircut fee is right this moment everywhere in the information. John Edwards brings poverty to easy, his paintings with the middle for possibilities is right this moment branded as "conserving intense profile". it will be as much as Iowans to save him. Please save John Edwards, and don't enable the media's plan to appoint Clinton or Obama so as that each and every redneck comes out of the woodworks to hold the GOP's "sturdy South", and proceed 8 extra years of George Bush.
2016-10-17 13:03:51 · answer #4 · answered by finnigan 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
He still wants to keep the health insurance companies involved. We don't need that - they are nothing but thieves. No system that keeps them involved is good.
I read an article, only one, which has your quote. Maybe it's accurate, maybe not. It says he said all women will have to have mammograms. HELLO! Because I nursed my children and because I had them late, I didn't get a mammo when I was 'supposed' to. Now, the research is not clear that it's a good idea. I'm pleased to not have had one.
Still, what is more cruel, more dictatorial - not allowing people to get health care or forcing them to get health care?
Being free to die in the gutter is a strange kind of freedom...
Poke around on Edward's site - http://johnedwards.com/issues/health-care/costs/
I don't see this mandatory physicals thing here.
At any rate, his ideas are much better than the republicans on this matter, and no one person's ideas will prevail. It's a step in the right direction for sure.
2007-09-02 15:13:10 · answer #5 · answered by cassandra 6 · 1⤊ 3⤋
What he's saying is that, under his plan, if you refuse to go for preventive care, then you will lose your benefits and have to pay your own way. He's not saying that he wants police to come and force you to a doctor's office. If we're going to have universal health care paid for by the government (and that's a big if), this is the right way to do it, since the costs are a lot lower for preventive medicine than reactive medicine. Either you hate the whole idea, and this statement doesn't change your views, or you like the idea, and this is the most sensible way to go about it.
2007-09-02 14:27:30 · answer #6 · answered by Thomas M 6 · 3⤊ 4⤋
John Edwards hate the idea of people being able to choose for themselves...which is why people wont choose him for president when they get to choose for themselves.
EDIT - This is a free country. I like to drink, smoke cigarettes, eat disgusting food from fast food restaurants, and i dont care to have some jerk off telling me that I have to take good care of myself. I will take care of myself when I want to take care of myself.
And also, America has the best health care. If some people think that they should not get insurance because it costs too much and they would rather spend the money on a big screen tv or rims for their 1984 honda civic, then go for it. it shouldnt be a burden on me because some people are too stupid to get insurance.
EDIT - This is to Cassandra(below). Its not that people are free to die in the gutter, its that people are free to make what they want out of their lives. If someone wants to not pay for insurance, then that is their choice. If someone wants to over eat and die at 30 of a heart attack, thats their choice. Its about being free to make your situation however you want. If you dont want to try, you wont have anything, but if you do want to try, you can have everything.
Which is more controlling and wrong for this country in every way? Being forced to pay for other people health care just because they did nothing to improve their life, or being free to live the way you want and spend your money on what you want
2007-09-02 14:20:43 · answer #7 · answered by Eric W 3 · 7⤊ 3⤋
I thought the phrase was "Should not apply to those already in the system", but this could be a mis-quote. In any event, I believe that John Edwards will be an excellent choice for Clinton's running mate.
The Universal Health Care plan allows the complex of the services of those connected with the passage.
2007-09-02 14:20:14 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 7⤋
I don't support him but he is in touch with reality. Universal health care will come with a loss of personal freedom. If the government is going to foot the bill they can make it mandatory to have an annual physical to continue coverage under the program.
2007-09-02 14:21:06 · answer #9 · answered by vegaswoman 6 · 3⤊ 4⤋
Consider the sourse, this is the same man who ran on the same ticket with John "I have a plan" Kerry..
2007-09-02 14:25:56 · answer #10 · answered by Barry auh2o 7 · 6⤊ 1⤋
Edwards is the guy who, before Gore, (because Al is slipping it over the world) pulled of the biggest scam in American jurisprudence history.
2007-09-02 14:26:37 · answer #11 · answered by illiberal Illuminati 3 · 4⤊ 3⤋