Are liberals up in arms over Edwards attempt to infringe on American rights?

Question

As they are over tapping overseas conversations? From Amy Lorentzen of the AP:
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."

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."...

"The whole idea is a continuum of care, basically from birth to death," he said. [emphases added]

In NYC, for example, there has been, for over a year, mandatory reporting to the government by law of diabetics' blood sugar test results so that people with diabetes can be visited by government health police and strong-armed to do this or that in terms of conventional therapies or interventions (as determined and sanctioned by the government).

On June 27, 2006 the New York Times published a prominent op-ed essay by an influential professor at Columbia University, Barron H. Lerner, M.D., who suggests that people who test positive for HIV and who decline or refuse to take their prescribed antiretroviral drugs might be locked up in "detention wards" at places like Bellevue Hospital and, similar to people with tuberculosis, forcibly medicated with HIV-AIDS drugs for up to two years."

so its okay for the government to force you to medicate and possibly be imprisoned for the betterment of society but dont let them listen to phone calls to keep us safe.

Answer 1

Libs are so transparent. What a bunch of hypocrites. If it were a republican/conservative proposing this they would be screaming at the top of your lungs... fascist state! How dare they impose their will on the public? It's unconstitutional!

Honesty is a foreign concept to most liberals.

And BTW, it has nothing to do with the Dem running in third place. The question was why you are not raising the roof about a proposal that allows the government to force it's will on the public in direct opposition to the constitution. Yet you are pleased to allow the ACLU to misconstrue and twist the constitution and say it provides freedom "from" religion as in "separation of church and state" which it does not say! You applaud the Supreme Court, a non legislative body, for pulling a "right" to abortion out of thin air and legislating from the bench.
The rules of law mean nothing to a lib. All that matters is that their agenda be advanced. As long as that's the end goal anything else one of theirs suggests is brilliant.
The question was not whether preventative care was a good idea or not. The question was why is your ire only reserved for those so called intrusions brought about by conservatives?
The wire taps have saved lives as well but that doesn't matter to libs.
What a disgusting display of hypocrisy.

The answer to the question is easy. No, they are not because it was proposed by one of their own and that not only makes it acceptable but a good idea as well.

It's not surprising the consummate liar, Michael Moore, is their hero.

Answer 2

I am amazed at how scared to death and obcessed people are with the guy in distant third in the Democratic party.

Actually if diseases and conditions are caught early enough they can be treated or eliminated. That would save billions in healthcare costs as those folks who refuse to go to the doctor until it is too late would have to go. Their condiditons would be detected. The later stages of most, if not all, diseases is much more costly to treat. So what Edwards says makes some sense.

Answer 3

tangerine, "non-contagouis disease like HIV"????? Stay away from me, please. You scare me!!

As for Comrade Edwards's proposal, it is UNCONSTITUTIONAL! There is no authority in the Constitution of the United States for the federal government to interfere in health care. I, for one, intend to disobey this law, if passed. I can decide for myself when I need a doctor. I can pay for my own insurance. Tell me one thing the federal government has taken over from the private sector and run nearly as efficiently or successfully.

Answer 4

Because you're not in the militia, and what you're describing does not sound "well regulated". The well regulated militia, at the time the Constitution was drafted, referred to the Minutemen. The armed townships that fought the guerrilla war to fight off the British. Now that the USA has the world's biggest military, the "militia" is obsolete. Of course, the Constitution is open to interpretation. Liberals think the "well regulated militia" is our military. Conservatives think it means they should be forming their own little militias to fight against the US army, which is ridiculous I think, but you have a right to your opinion, as we do ours.

Answer 5

Let me simplify it for you, because you obviously need that.

If someone chooses not to have auto insurance for twenty years, and then grows up and decides he needs the auto insurance system, he is going to have to pay a staggering premium for his lack of prior insurance. He may not even get it.

Similarly, if someone ducks the doctor for twenty years, and then he suddenly wants in on the health insurance system when he has a health problem, why should the rest of the participants in the system have to pay for his irresponsibility?

Like the fireman guy above said, I guess personal responsibility is no longer a con value.

Answer 6

I am all for preventative care...but I am NOT for someone telling me what kind and when I have to get it...it's my life and I don't need the government to treat me like a child. I already have a mother!

Answer 7

Definitely showing why this is called socialized medicine, its just like the Russians or Chinese mandating to their citizens what they should do.

Answer 8

So he is aying that if you opt to take part in the insurance you have an obligation to show up for preventative care, thereby saving the system untold billions buy treating conditions early on? My god that sounds like that personal responsibility thing evryone harps on...whats the problem with that?

Answer 9

So let me get this right, "You are "required" to be covered" under this plan. Therefore, you have no "Right to Privacy nor any Right to Freedom of Religion".



He kills two rights with one stone.

Nice job Edwards!

Answer 10

Amazing that people are so willing to give up their freedom so blindly!