Edwards Backs Mandatory Preventive Care

[iron81]

Maybe they would be denied coverage under Edwards plan? Similar to what the British guy is proposing regarding their NHS.

[mjkidd]

[ QUOTE ]
Maybe they would be denied coverage under Edwards plan? Similar to what the British guy is proposing regarding their NHS.

[/ QUOTE ]

I wouldn't be allowed to purchase health insurance? Edwards' plan only costs 120 billion/year, so it's not going to be Universal healthcare.

[mosdef]

[ QUOTE ]
Maybe they would be denied coverage under Edwards plan? Similar to what the British guy is proposing regarding their NHS.

[/ QUOTE ]

So "mandatory" means you must get regular checkups or you don't get any coverage but you still keep paying for coverage?

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
since some people don't want it in the first place.

[/ QUOTE ]

who wouldnt want health insurance?

[/ QUOTE ]

Someone in better than average health, who takes care of himself, eats well, excercises, etc. Insurance is always -EV, and if your circumstances make it even more -EV, then of course some people wouldn't think that health insurance is worth buying.

[/ QUOTE ]

Being in better than average health could make it *less* -EV since you can usually get substantial premium discounts (for non-group policies). If you're in better health not only is your expectation lower, but your variance in terms of medical incidents should be less, which should (could) translate into even cheaper coverage.

[mjkidd]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
since some people don't want it in the first place.

[/ QUOTE ]

who wouldnt want health insurance?

[/ QUOTE ]

Someone in better than average health, who takes care of himself, eats well, excercises, etc. Insurance is always -EV, and if your circumstances make it even more -EV, then of course some people wouldn't think that health insurance is worth buying.

[/ QUOTE ]

Being in better than average health could make it *less* -EV since you can usually get substantial premium discounts (for non-group policies). If you're in better health not only is your expectation lower, but your variance in terms of medical incidents should be less, which should (could) translate into even cheaper coverage.

[/ QUOTE ]

Perhaps, but I don't think the insurance companies could take into account diet and exercise.

[JackWhite]

[ QUOTE ]
Maybe they would be denied coverage under Edwards plan? Similar to what the British guy is proposing regarding their NHS.


[/ QUOTE ]

Here is the article that you referenced for those interested:

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/artic...ries/article.do

[John Kilduff]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Stipulating that some people will not want these checkups, how else besides force can Edwards implement his plan?

[/ QUOTE ]

I believe the argument would be that it doesn't count as forcing someone to do it if it's for their own good.

[/ QUOTE ]

That wouldn't be not an argument; that would be nonsense. In what dictionary might that exception to the meaning of the word "forcing" be found?

So a parent forcing his children to eat their vegetables isn't really forcing them to do anything...it's as if the action never took place at all.

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Yeah, it's not like financial incentives would be possible here. Clearly, criminalizing self-neglect in the world's most obese nation is the only conceivable plan.

I mean, I'm trying to take you conspiracy theorists seriously, but you don't make it easy.

[/ QUOTE ]

WTF? If Edwards wanted to give people financial incentives to seek preventitive care, he would have said so. Giving someone an incentive to do something does not make it mandatory. How is he going to make something mandatory if it's not backed up by the threat of force?

[/ QUOTE ]

Incentivizing something is a lot different than making that something mandatory. I'm fairly certain that Mr. Edwards notions are vague on this and that his "health program" is long on promises but short on a clear path to getting there. Normal stuff for a campaign (unfortunately). If you go to his web site he seems to imply incentives. Anyway the problem I have with this dude is that his thoughts and ideas run in the direction of government gaining a lot more control over people. I think Edwards is right about preventive health care in that it seems to be the most cost effective way in dealing with health issues. However, why the nanny state needs to be enforcing something like this is puzzling to me. Yes mandatory and enforcement are words that go hand in hand. It's like Edwards has the attitude that since the government is providing health care the people have to follow the rules. How many people in the USA are asking the US to provide health care for them anyway? Isn't it something like 47 million aren't covered. That means over 250 million are covered. I'll choose the option to fend for myself regarding health care coverage, thank you very much.

[pokerbobo]

[ QUOTE ]
I just can't WAIT to have to fill out my daily 2040A Caloric & Exercise Disclosure Forms lest the Internal Health Service audit me.

[/ QUOTE ]

If Edwards had his way Boro... you would be in line for the psych evaluations and treatment. You are obviously insane for not wanting gubment cheese and gubment health care.

[pokerbobo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This is an idea from a Democrat that has a great deal of potential to do a lot of harm IMO. Unbelievable really.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is unbelievable why? Most ideas from Dems have potential to do a lot of harm.

Soc Sec, welfare, higher taxes, pretty much just list socialist ideas.... many are supported by dems, all have potential for harm.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are republican ideas magically exempt from doing harm?

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course not.... but the dems do not speak of lower taxes, smaller govt, freedom of the individual. These are things repubs speak of (although rarely get implemented) and will do good and not harm. The repubs have no balls, and the dems fearmonger everything mentioned above, preying on the emotion of non thinking Americans.

Both parties pretty much suck right now, really it is the choice between Democrats and "lite" Democrats. I choose the "lite" version as the lesser of two evils.

Maybe we should all vote Dem, shouldnt take more than about 10 years for the country to completely collapse, then we can start over with a better grip on why the framers didnt write these powers into the constitution, that these a-holes just assume they have now.