Well, I have my issues with Hilary, but boy I actually breathe a sigh of relief that she is going to get the nomination as oppose to "pretty boy" Edwards...who, in his latest pronouncements on his "health care" plan said THIS: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070902/ap_on_el_pr/edwards_2 "Required" mental health care. Hoo boy. Next in the Edwards health care program. Requried mandatory pre-dawn morning calisthenics, a la North Korea, as we do jumping jacks in front of a 40 foot high portrait our gorgeous new leader. Required mandatory use of condoms for all unmarried couples under the age of 30. Required mandatory elimination of all trans fats. Required mandatory elimination of foie gras as cruel to animals. Required mandatory use of PH neutral shampoo.
This does not surprise me! Democrats want their socialized medicine plans to be militant and follow the same "required" model as the IRS. I would envision under the Edwards Health Care Plan we will have such procedures as a forced colonoscopy with due emphasis on the word forced. Strange it is that Democrats do not dare ask illegal aliens their nationality yet they want to force Americans to consent to mental health care! Clinton, Obama, et al. have individual variants on the socialized medicine plans that all Americans need be suspicious. Greet these plans and their proposers with two simple questions: Has the government ever managed anything successfully? Then why do you believe it can manage health care?
I sort of agree with Edwards. Type 2 diabetes is largely caused by poor health and it is driving up the cost of health care. It's an epidemic. Your choices of how to take care of yourself DO impact the society at large. If everyone was healthier it would be better for all of society. If we move to a universal health care program I don't think it's unreasonable to ask people be more responsible with their bodies since tax payers would be footing the bill.
I agree Microwave but YOU CAN'T force health care in a democracy. Nor would you want to. So let's ban alcohol, cigarettes, automobiles, and forbid sexual contact; those four actions would really make society healthier eh? Once you go down the road of regulation when do you stop? You overlook that Constitutional mandate eh? It is not the government's job, in a democracy, to provide health care. It's not a case of it being reasonable or "unreasonable" but rather the government has no business so doing.
My issue is not with the value of preventative care -- its value is indisputable. My issue is with the government of King John Edwards mandating specific actions on the part of a free people. Health insurance is a complicated issue. But the way we solve it is not by establishing the almighty government as our decision maker. The way you drive costs down and improve quality is by doing the same things that drove down costs and improved quality in so many other products -- incentivize producers and consumers, offer choice, allow the rewards of efficiency to be reaped by health care providers. In other words, let's incentivize peoole to get preventative care. Create benefits/reward for appropriate checkups, appropriate blood profiles. If people drive 3 extra blocks to save 40 cents on a gasoline fillup, think of what they would do to "save" a couple hundred dollars a year by getting an annual cholesterol panel. By the way, Edwards is so hot on mammograms. Well, their value is being called into question. see: http://www.theage.com.au/news/natio...screening-study/2007/08/12/1186857347075.html And I think we spend upwards of a billion dollars a year on them.
Well, if Edwards ran on that platform and Americans voted for him then wouldn't that be democracy? Well if we banned alcohol and cigarettes I would not protest that at all. Cars are different as they are needed because our mass transist sucks. There is no way to ban sexual contact so I won't comment on it. What mandate? If health care costs continue to increase then what are the alternatives? I would prefer a market based alternative but at this point I don't see one. By the way, Guliani has said Americans need to take care of themselves better too, to help cut health care costs.
Can you name a single program or process that got better when the government took it over? Like Reagan said, the "problem is government" and if you really wish to cut costs in health care start deregulating it... cutting some of the complex medical process forms and government reporting arrangements will achieve supply side cuts in health care cost. No way that the Democrats' plan for socialized medicine will fix the process and it will likely make things far worse. The "alternative" you seek is not some magical federal department that Democrats wish to create that tells you your life saving surgery is scheduled six months hence but private medicine and health care better managed that tells you your surgery is tomorrow.