Notice what's missing?? Choice...Freedom...Responsibility

[sirs]

BY JAMES TARANTO
Tuesday, September 4, 2007

Just What the Lawyer Ordered
Who does John Edwards think he is, our mother? The Associated Press reports from Tipton, Iowa, on the lovely and talented one's latest brainstorm:

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." Edwards and his wife, Elizabeth, announced earlier this year that her breast cancer had returned and spread.

Edwards said his mandatory health care plan would cover preventive, chronic and long-term health care. The plan would include mental health care as well as dental and vision coverage for all Americans.

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

Aside from its obvious creepiness, there is something dissonant on several levels about a liberal politician in this day and age calling for government to police everyone's medical care.

For one thing, liberals, who these days are more or less uniformly pro-abortion, invariably speak of that practice in terms of "privacy" and "choice." But how in the world can anyone who values privacy and choice more than life itself possibly countenance a policy of forcing women to have mammograms?

For another, we live in a time when liberals often sound like antigovernment kooks, making far-fetched claims that the government is spying on all of us, torturing innocent terrorists, deliberately letting hurricane victims die, etc. Of course the object of this paranoia isn't government per se but the Republican Party and especially the current administration. Some have even asserted (see, for example, this 2005 item about former Enron adviser Paul Krugman) that conservative ideology precludes competent governance.

For the sake of argument, let's assume this assertion is true. It is also true that Americans in recent decades have shown a preference for conservative ideology, electing conservative Republicans in four or five of the past seven presidential elections (and, in the other two, choosing a Democrat who proclaimed "the era of big government is over"). If only liberals can handle big government, and Americans can't be trusted to elect liberals, expanding the government in the way Edwards proposes is a dreadful idea regardless of where you stand politically.

The question would-be Edwards supporters should be asking is: Would you want George W. Bush making medical decisions for you? Is there anyone who would answer in the affirmative?

You want Bush making YOUR medical decisions?

[Universe Prince]

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."

This is a good example of why I think associating fascism purely with right-wing politics is a fallacy. Edwards is not only going to make sure you have health care, he's going to make sure you use it. Social control from the top down, naturally, in the name of the good of the people. Fascism at its most basic.

[Mr_Perceptive]

I must say that I agree. Demanding I get health care, preventative or not, is NOT his call. And, I voted for him, too. Oh well.

[_JS]

I don't mind this at all.

And by the way, that has nothing to do with Fascism whatsoever. Honestly, people need to learn more than just dictionary definitions of terms.

[sirs]

I don't mind this at all.

LOL......surprise, surprise

And by the way, that has nothing to do with Fascism whatsoever. Honestly, people need to learn more than just dictionary definitions of terms.

Of course.  It has much more to do with Government telling people what they're going to do, and how they're going to do it....or else.  Hell Responsibility and Freedom are so overrated anyways.  Unless of course we have new definitions to give them as well

[_JS]

Ignoring the mudslinging for a moment, which was really uncalled for.

This is another issue that immediately gets viewed through the lense of neo-liberalism. Individual rights, is for some reason the first and immediate thought.

It shouldn't be. This is a matter of public health. The truth is that pregnant women should receive pre-natal care. Women over a certain age should have mammograms. Showing people their cholesterol numbers, triglyceride levels, blood sugar, etc is sometimes the best way to get them to see that they need to change their lifestyle. People tend to respect hard quantitative data as opposed to simple warnings about certain foods, or avoiding smoking while pregnant.

Believe it or not, not every issue under the sun is only associated with a test of neoliberalism. Calling people Fascist is a five-decade old political trick (along with calling them communist) to force one's views into a corner. It is meaningless and often employed by those who refuse engaging in a real argument beyond mudslinging.

The article itself does nothing more than just that.

Would you want George W. Bush making medical decisions for you?

Of course this is a simplistic scare tactic. Medical professionals determine what preventative care is most effective and necessary. President Bush has nothing to do with it.

[Universe Prince]

And by the way, that has nothing to do with Fascism whatsoever. Honestly, people need to learn more than just dictionary definitions of terms.

I think it does. No, it isn't the whole of fascism all by itself. It's just a piece. And that is based on a broader understanding of fascism than just a dictionary definition.

[_JS]

I think it does. No, it isn't the whole of fascism all by itself. It's just a piece. And that is based on a broader understanding of fascism than just a dictionary definition.

Are you arguing that Edwards is engaged in corporatism between the Government, insurance providers, and health care workers?

He certainly is not uniting right wing parties in the United States. I fail to follow this argument.

[Lanya]

Um, required preventative visits to the doc are how you, like, prevent diseases or prevent them from getting way worse.  This is a bad thing? No.  It saves taxpayer money by the city landfill-load  down the road.  I am sure Sirs knows of someone who, because of untreated (pick one) high blood pressure or diabetes, went into kidney failure or other organ failure and was on a vent for months, until their deaths.  I certainly have taken care of my share of million dollar patients.   A doctor visit: $50, let's say.  Hypertension dx,  a prescription for Atenolol and hydrochlorothyazide, $30.   

Wow.  $80 is far less than a million dollars.   Who would have thunk it?   Only people who think this country and its populace deserve medical care, I guess.  Only people who don't want people to die unnecessarily.  Only people who actually can COUNT.  Damn.  I think I want people who can count to be my president. 

[Universe Prince]

Are you arguing that Edwards is engaged in corporatism between the Government, insurance providers, and health care workers?

He certainly is not uniting right wing parties in the United States. I fail to follow this argument.

No. I'm arguing that Edwards is proposing social control from the government. Corporatism is not the beginning and end of fascism. If you fail to follow this argument, that is possibly because you seem to be stuck associating fascism with right-wing politics. From where I sit, the right does not have a monopoly on wanting little bits of fascism to improve society, as I think Edwards proposal makes clear. If you don't like calling it fascism, we can call it authoritarianism instead. In this case it amounts to the same thing.

This is another issue that immediately gets viewed through the lense of neo-liberalism. Individual rights, is for some reason the first and immediate thought.

It shouldn't be. This is a matter of public health.

Yes, it is a matter of public health, but this is also a matter of individual liberty. Edwards's plan takes liberty away from individuals. This is not some to be dismissed because you can call it a matter of public health. In actuality, we're talking about the health of individuals.

The truth is that pregnant women should receive pre-natal care. Women over a certain age should have mammograms. Showing people their cholesterol numbers, triglyceride levels, blood sugar, etc is sometimes the best way to get them to see that they need to change their lifestyle. People tend to respect hard quantitative data as opposed to simple warnings about certain foods, or avoiding smoking while pregnant.

I agree. But that doesn't give you, or Edwards or anyone else, the authority to take away the liberty of people who don't go do the doctor as often as you'd like. As I said before, this is social control from the top down, which, if not fascism, is at the very least authoritarianism.

Believe it or not, not every issue under the sun is only associated with a test of neoliberalism.

True enough, but that doesn't mean this one isn't.

Calling people Fascist is a five-decade old political trick (along with calling them communist) to force one's views into a corner.

I did not call anyone a Fascist. I used this news story to help illustrate what I see as a trend of U.S. society gradually moving to vote and lobby its way into fascism by bits and pieces. It's not going to be forced by right-wing extremists. Ordinary folks from the left and the right are going to gradually vote it into existence. This announcement from Edwards is merely one small piece of evidence, imo.

Would you want George W. Bush making medical decisions for you?

Of course this is a simplistic scare tactic. Medical professionals determine what preventative care is most effective and necessary. President Bush has nothing to do with it.

Edwards on the other hand, does apparently want to make medical decisions for people if he becomes President. So the question is appropriate. Yes, it is a scare tactic, but not entirely out of line. I would rephrase it. If you're okay with Edwards plan, do you would you trust neoconservatives to decide when people should be required to go in for mental health check-ups? As I recall, President Bush did propose a plan at one point that was going to have all children getting their mental health tested and accordingly medicated, and that didn't go over well. I'm sure a lot of people would find the plan more acceptable administered by Democrats, but is that really something government should be doing? I think it is not.

[Universe Prince]

Only people who don't want people to die unnecessarily.

There is the scare tactic.

Only people who actually can COUNT.

And there is the mudslinging.

[Henny]

It shouldn't be. This is a matter of public health. The truth is that pregnant women should receive pre-natal care. Women over a certain age should have mammograms. Showing people their cholesterol numbers, triglyceride levels, blood sugar, etc is sometimes the best way to get them to see that they need to change their lifestyle. People tend to respect hard quantitative data as opposed to simple warnings about certain foods, or avoiding smoking while pregnant.

The idea of mandatory health care makes me really uncomfortable. Do I think it's Fascist? No. But I do think it's a slippery slope.

You mention a matter of "public health" but my concern is to ask, what happened to privacy?

I am quite supportive of a massive overhaul of American healthcare, and certainly, it makes sense that people should take care of their health. But who is going to enforce mandatory health care? Who will be keeping track? Of course it won't be Bush - that's ridiculous. But who? And what are the penalties for non-compliance?

[Richpo64]

>>The idea of mandatory health care makes me really uncomfortable. Do I think it's Fascist? No. But I do think it's a slippery slope.<<

It's actually more like Communism. And you should be afraid of people who suggest it, and people who agree with it.

>>But who is going to enforce mandatory health care? Who will be keeping track? Of course it won't be Bush - that's ridiculous. But who? And what are the penalties for non-compliance?<<

Why people like JS of course. They know what's best for you dontcha know! They'll make the important decisions. You just keep paying your taxes.

[_JS]

No. I'm arguing that Edwards is proposing social control from the government. Corporatism is not the beginning and end of fascism. If you fail to follow this argument, that is possibly because you seem to be stuck associating fascism with right-wing politics. From where I sit, the right does not have a monopoly on wanting little bits of fascism to improve society, as I think Edwards proposal makes clear. If you don't like calling it fascism, we can call it authoritarianism instead. In this case it amounts to the same thing.

Corporatism is a key element of Fascism, as was nationalism. Simply saying Fascism = Authoritarianism is a poor understanding of the real philosophical and political concepts that were behind the historical force of Fascism.

Yes, it is a matter of public health, but this is also a matter of individual liberty. Edwards's plan takes liberty away from individuals. This is not some to be dismissed because you can call it a matter of public health. In actuality, we're talking about the health of individuals.

Or we're talking about the collective health of the public. Again, not everything must be argued through the lense of neoliberalism and the effect on individual rights. I get it Prince. If a woman wants to shoot heroin while she's pregnant she should have that right. Freedom is so wonderful. Yipee. Unfortunately, as citizens of the world we have to apply some standards to the society in which we live.

I agree. But that doesn't give you, or Edwards or anyone else, the authority to take away the liberty of people who don't go do the doctor as often as you'd like. As I said before, this is social control from the top down, which, if not fascism, is at the very least authoritarianism.

No, this is hyperbole. You and I both know that no one is going to come to a woman's home and force her to have a mammogram. I doubt sincerely that Edwards is proposing such a thing.

True enough, but that doesn't mean this one isn't.

We could play this game all day. That doesn't mean it is...

I did not call anyone a Fascist. I used this news story to help illustrate what I see as a trend of U.S. society gradually moving to vote and lobby its way into fascism by bits and pieces. It's not going to be forced by right-wing extremists. Ordinary folks from the left and the right are going to gradually vote it into existence. This announcement from Edwards is merely one small piece of evidence, imo.

Historically Fascism is put into place through force. I cannot think of a single Fascist leader that did not use force to come to power. Yet, that doesn't mean that Fascism doesn't have ample opportunity to be an elected force, and the United States is certainly ripe for it. We are, by nature, much more right wing than most nations from the outset. Democrats in the United States would make Tories in the UK, for example.

Edwards on the other hand, does apparently want to make medical decisions for people if he becomes President. So the question is appropriate. Yes, it is a scare tactic, but not entirely out of line. I would rephrase it. If you're okay with Edwards plan, do you would you trust neoconservatives to decide when people should be required to go in for mental health check-ups? As I recall, President Bush did propose a plan at one point that was going to have all children getting their mental health tested and accordingly medicated, and that didn't go over well. I'm sure a lot of people would find the plan more acceptable administered by Democrats, but is that really something government should be doing? I think it is not.

I don't think that mental health check ups for adults would be such a bad idea either.

[_JS]

The idea of mandatory health care makes me really uncomfortable. Do I think it's Fascist? No. But I do think it's a slippery slope.

You mention a matter of "public health" but my concern is to ask, what happened to privacy?

I am quite supportive of a massive overhaul of American healthcare, and certainly, it makes sense that people should take care of their health. But who is going to enforce mandatory health care? Who will be keeping track? Of course it won't be Bush - that's ridiculous. But who? And what are the penalties for non-compliance?

I don't see where privacy would have to be lost. Doctor-patient confidentiality would still remain intact, would it not?

I don't think anyone would enforce mandatory health care, to be honest. I think this is all a bit of a mountain out of a mole hill. No one would be forced to have a mammogram or to receive pre-natal care. Yet, perhaps through socialised health care, we could at least keep people much more informed about their needs and why preventive care is important.

This all smacks of the anti-Fluoridation folks to me.