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

[Universe Prince]

Corporatism is a key element of Fascism, as was nationalism.

Which we already have to some degree. You're missing the point. I did not say Edwards was proposing fascism. Edwards' proposal is a left-wing small step toward fascism.

Simply saying Fascism = Authoritarianism is a poor understanding of the real philosophical and political concepts that were behind the historical force of Fascism.

I did not say that. I said, "If you don't like calling it fascism, we can call it authoritarianism instead. In this case it amounts to the same thing." "In this case" meaning specific to Edwards' proposal.

Or we're talking about the collective health of the public.

Does the public have a collective health? Seems to me the public is a bunch of individuals, each with his or her own personal health issues.

Again, not everything must be argued through the lense of neoliberalism and the effect on individual rights.

I agree. That said, when an issue has a direct effect on individual liberty, mentioning the effect on individual liberty hardly seems out of place.

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.

Heroin? Where did that come from? My problem with Edwards' proposal is that it removes the liberty for the individual to choose for himself whether or not to go to the doctor. Yes, sometimes liberty means being free to make the wrong choice. But that doesn't mean liberty is something we should toss aside simply because some people make choices we don't like.

Unfortunately, as citizens of the world we have to apply some standards to the society in which we live.

For some of us, liberty is a standard. And I am sure I can find some religious fundamentalists (Christian, Muslim, or otherwise) who have some standards they would like to apply to the society in which we live. Saying we should apply standards sounds nice and righteous, but there are some standards I think we are better off not making into laws.

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.

The AP article says Edwards "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 article also quotes Edwards as saying

"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."

Now maybe that doesn't mean having someone go to a woman's house to make sure she has a mammogram, but it sure does sound like there are going to be penalties if she doesn't have one at the government required time. Generally the government doesn't send people to one's home to make sure income taxes are paid, but not paying them usually results in penalties anyway.

In any case, making doctor's office visits a requirement removes the legality of the choice to go or not go from the individual. This is, as I keep saying, social control from the top down. You may not want to call it fascism or authoritarianism, but it certainly is not freedom.

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

Possibly they would not be, but I have a problem with government requiring it by law. Shades of Miniluv.

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

No, not if records for government must be kept to verify when and for what people visit the doctor.

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

What was that you were saying about forcing "one's views into a corner"?

[Mr_Perceptive]

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.

JS: "Women over a certain age should have mammograms"

I strongly concur, but isn't this an entirely different issue than mandating them to get them?

[Mr_Perceptive]

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. 

Yes, preventative care can indeed cost less than not doing it, but, again, you really want to REQUIRE people to get this care? What's next? If you are overwieght, you are REQUIRED to diet? I am considered obese due to my athletic physique, so should I be required to diet even though my BMI is less than 25?

[Mr_Perceptive]

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.

"Edwards's plan takes liberty away from individuals." = something. But, whatever the term, it is NOT equivalenced to individual freedom.

[Universe Prince]

"Edwards's plan takes liberty away from individuals." = something. But, whatever the term, it is NOT equivalenced to individual freedom.

Will you elaborate, please?

[Mr_Perceptive]

Edwards appears to advocate a Plan that takes choice away from the Individual and onto the State, even if it is via a proxy such as an HMO informing you that you must get a mammogram before the 13th of the month.

Now, perhaps an approach where you encourage preventative care might be more effective....How might this be accomplished?

[sirs]

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. 

Absolutely it's a good thing to do.....BUT NOT AT THE DICTATES OF THE GOVERNMENT.  The same Government everyone is all over in denouncing "big brother", "spying", etc.  You realize the Government will have direct access to these medical records, since THEY'RE the ones that will be using our tax dollars to pay for it.  So the notion that your medical information will be held confidential is laughable.  Yet, this is what's being advocated??   

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.  

oy...the old fall back...if you don't support the lib's notion of how things should be you are by design, anti-"that".  I could tell you horror stories Lanya, from what I've seen and witnessed.  Do I think those incidents warrant the taking away of our freedom?  You really want a REPUBLICAN congress (they will eventually be in the majority again) and/or a REPUBLICAN President telling you what you're going to do medically?  What tests you WILL perform, in the name of "public health"?  The same clan you think want women to die of Cancer, you want to give THAT kind of CONTROL to??

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

Where you get "mudslinging" I have no idea.  But let's move past that

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.

YES, it should.  Freedom should not so easily be cast aside because someone else thinks they know better.  In other words, Freedom includes the freedom to make bad choices, to act stupid, to say and/or perform things completely illogical.  You may be much smarter than me, and 95% of the rest of us Js.  Your superior intellect & grasp of "complexities" however does NOT give you jurisdiction over MY simplistic choices, so long as I'm not injuring or endangering anyone else

This is a matter of public health.

So "public health" trumps personal responsibility??  Trumps freedom?   Where does it stop Js?  When does the Government tell me how many calories I should be eating?  When does the Government tell me whem my bodyfat % is too great and should be lowered?  When does the Government tell me how much I'm to weigh, and if over said #, should be obligated to a strict diet?  Your "public health" glosses right over my freedom, my choices, because someone else, in this case the Government, apparently "knows better"

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.

Yes, that's all well & good, BUT the point remains.....our Government should NOT be dictating how we are to live our lives, such as  mandating when we're to see a doctor, and when we're to have some test performed.  As Prince accurately referenced, if not fascist, it's at minimum Authoritarianism

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.

It's EDWARDS making the proclaimations, Js.  It's Edwards making it clear what he would MANDATE under his plan  The article simply highlights what he's planning to impose.  And while we're at it, perhaps you can have a serious talk with our resident Canadien communist, who apparently has no problem calling any and everything he doesn't agree with that "5-decade old political trick".  Give him a heads-up on it's chronic overuse

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.

Yet it's President-want-to-be Edwards claiming precisely that.  That his Government WILL be making your medical decisions.  What was that about what Fascism tends to do?...something about a Centralized Government implimentating mandatory compliance to ....... most everything.  Ususally requires a dictator.  Is Edwards applying for the position?

[Henny]

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

Would it?

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.

Perhaps, but the gist of the whole debate in this thread is the suggestion that someone out there thinks that "mandatory" preventative health care is a good idea.

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

I suppose if the discussion were about adding something to the drinking water supply to do away with some of the previously mentioned health problems, then I could agree with you and would even support that addition to all potable water supplies. Otherwise, your comparison doesn't fit.

[_JS]

Wow. I'm not exactly sure where to start.

Does the public have a collective health? Seems to me the public is a bunch of individuals, each with his or her own personal health issues.

I cannot agree because as a society we all suffer when public health deteriorates or suffers a crisis.

Heroin? Where did that come from? My problem with Edwards' proposal is that it removes the liberty for the individual to choose for himself whether or not to go to the doctor. Yes, sometimes liberty means being free to make the wrong choice. But that doesn't mean liberty is something we should toss aside simply because some people make choices we don't like.

Being free to make the wrong choices is a fine theoretical concept Prince. We could get into endless hours of discussing hypothetical scenarios of "wrong choices" that start causing harm to others, or to society as a whole. Could we not?

To me, this isn't an argument for neoliberal nitpicking. Do I like that the Government has to be the one to force the issue? No. If it were up to me the entire system would be completely different and it would be completely different entities working with local areas on public health matters. But, we are dealt the hand we have and while theoretical arguments are enjoyable - pragmatic issues are more important in the grand scheme of events.

For some of us, liberty is a standard. And I am sure I can find some religious fundamentalists (Christian, Muslim, or otherwise) who have some standards they would like to apply to the society in which we live. Saying we should apply standards sounds nice and righteous, but there are some standards I think we are better off not making into laws.

Strawman. I'll not answer that.

In any case, making doctor's office visits a requirement removes the legality of the choice to go or not go from the individual. This is, as I keep saying, social control from the top down. You may not want to call it fascism or authoritarianism, but it certainly is not freedom.[/color]

I'll concede that Edwards appears to have said that. If it is authoritarian, then so be it.

Possibly they would not be, but I have a problem with government requiring it by law. Shades of Miniluv.

Yes, that's my secret desire to create Oceania.

Mental health check-ups are not the same as government medication or propaganda programs.

No, not if records for government must be kept to verify when and for what people visit the doctor.

You do realise that somewhere in Mumbai, insurance companies are keeping track of your doctor's visits and why you went to see the doctor? They keep track of your medications. They will even question your treatments as well. All of this is already well-recorded. More than that, Life Insurance companies will also ask for this information when researching for your policy. In some cases a court may also subpeona these documents.

None of this is new. It would just be a change of vendor.

What was that you were saying about forcing "one's views into a corner"?

That's true. I admit that was an unfair comment on my part.

[Xavier_Onassis]

I don't think one should vote for a leader based on what they say they will do so much as what they are likely to do.

Edwards might be able to get health care for everyone. There is no chance that he could make this compulsory. The political system opposes this, as does the Constitution.

The attention that I got from Social Security in applying for Medicare was in every way better than the attention I have gotten from any of a half dozen HMO's I have been enrolled in. I was not put on hold, the person I spoke with did not ask for my number after I had keyed it in but once, and all options were explained in a friendly manner by someone who actually seemed to know what she was talking about quite well.

Many of the HMO operators seemed to be people who appeared to have been drummed out of the DMV for cluelessness and insensitivity to customers.

If the advantages of preventative medicine are explained well to everyone, a majority will likely try to improve their health by following this sound medical advice.
Those who choose not to do so will suffer poorer health, but I do not see where any federal government will ever be able to compel them to take a physical or their medicine. In the case of such people as Christian Scientists, this would be a clear violation of their religious freedom.

I would choose Edwards over any Republican currently striving to get the nomination, irrespective of their fund raising abilities and even previous experience on popular TV shows.

[_JS]

YES, it should.  Freedom should not so easily be cast aside because someone else thinks they know better.  In other words, Freedom includes the freedom to make bad choices, to act stupid, to say and/or perform things completely illogical.  You may be much smarter than me, and 95% of the rest of us Js.  Your superior intellect & grasp of "complexities" however does NOT give you jurisdiction over MY simplistic choices, so long as I'm not injuring or endangering anyone else

Well, I'm glad you've finally seen the light Sirs  

Seriously, you are against abortion but having a woman smoke and put down a fifth of Jack Daniels while pregnant, that works well for you? She's just making a "stupid choice" in that case, right?

No. Public health affects society as a whole. Therefore I have no problem with having people receive regular medical check-ups. Would that include being forced to take medicine? Of course not. It wouldn't even include being forced to receive treatment for a condition if they don't want to. For that matter, if one is a Christian Scientist (or other similar religion) then there should be that opt out as well.

So "public health" trumps personal responsibility??  Trumps freedom?   Where does it stop Js?  When does the Government tell me how many calories I should be eating?  When does the Government tell me whem my bodyfat % is too great and should be lowered?  When does the Government tell me how much I'm to weigh, and if over said #, should be obligated to a strict diet?  Your "public health" glosses right over my freedom, my choices, because someone else, in this case the Government, apparently "knows better"

Yes, public health trumps the nebulous and oft-poorly applied term "personal responsibility." Clearly the Government cannot tell you how many calories to eat.  

Sirs, your arguments here are misleading. One could, on the same parallel, say "when does the Government start telling me where I can and cannot turn my automobile right?" "When does the Government start telling me to wear my safety belts?" "When does the Government start telling me which side of the road I can drive on?"

And in this case, medical doctors know better, not the Government.

Yes, that's all well & good, BUT the point remains.....our Government should NOT be dictating how we are to live our lives, such as  mandating when we're to see a doctor, and when we're to have some test performed.  As Prince accurately referenced, if not fascist, it's at minimum Authoritarianism

Well, it is not Fascist. Call it authoritarian, I don't really care.

It's EDWARDS making the proclaimations, Js.  It's Edwards making it clear what he would MANDATE under his plan  The article simply highlights what he's planning to impose.  And while we're at it, perhaps you can have a serious talk with our resident Canadien communist, who apparently has no problem calling any and everything he doesn't agree with that "5-decade old political trick".  Give him a heads-up on it's chronic overuse

Let's have a debate without you giving me an order to tell something to Tee, Lanya, or Terra, OK? That gets a bit old and is completely irrelevant to this topic.

Yet it's President-want-to-be Edwards claiming precisely that.  That his Government WILL be making your medical decisions.  What was that about what Fascism tends to do?...something about a Centralized Government implimentating mandatory compliance to ....... most everything.  Ususally requires a dictator.  Is Edwards applying for the position?

Not worth replying to until you learn something about Fascism and its actual, historical political and philosophical ideology.

[_JS]

Would it?

Two thoughts:

1. Please see my response to Prince. All of these medical records are already kept by insurance companies.

2. Do you have some evidence to indicate that this plan would reverse the laws concerning doctor-patient confidentiality?

Perhaps, but the gist of the whole debate in this thread is the suggestion that someone out there thinks that "mandatory" preventative health care is a good idea.

Yes. I do.

I have yet to see a very persuasive argument against it, other than Ivory Tower points about "liberty" and discussions about a slippery slope that will lead to mandatory weigh ins and Government diets, which will eventually lead to a Fascist state similar to Oceania where I might be placed in charge of Miniluv. <Yes, I'm joking...sort of>

I haven't seen any evidence of any of this beyond a really poor understanding of Fascism.

I suppose if the discussion were about adding something to the drinking water supply to do away with some of the previously mentioned health problems, then I could agree with you and would even support that addition to all potable water supplies. Otherwise, your comparison doesn't fit.

No, you and Prince are correct about that. I apologise for the comment.

[sirs]

Seriously, you are against abortion but having a woman smoke and put down a fifth of Jack Daniels while pregnant, that works well for you? She's just making a "stupid choice" in that case, right?

You think that "works for me"?  goes without saying.  Yes, she's making some stupid choices while pregnant.  Is she purposely trying to kill the child?  Is that what you're really asking, since that's what abortion is about, activiely, and by choice killing a child.  Because the choice you're outlining above, as stupid and irresponsible as they are, are her choices to make...or at least SHOULD BE.

Therefore I have no problem with having people receive regular medical check-ups. Would that include being forced to take medicine? Of course not. It wouldn't even include being forced to receive treatment for a condition if they don't want to.

Js, you can't have it both ways.  I have no problem with people want want to have regular medical check-ups.  I'd encourage that.  If you mandate both vists & procedures, you have to mandate the treatement if something is found.  You give the patient their tx options, but as the responsible body for facilitating "public health", that's the minimum that would be done.  At least that's the slope we're looking at.  Now, educate me here, do any of these other UHC countries, UK, Canada, MANDATE visits??

 

Yes, public health trumps the nebulous and oft-poorly applied term "personal responsibility." Clearly the Government cannot tell you how many calories to eat. 

CLEARLY they can.  This is precisely the point I'm making.  In the name of "public health", with just how well government has completely mutated the Commerce clause", with the right emotional rhetoric, Government can absolutely indicate how many calories is too much, if your body weight and/or body fat %'s are deemed "too high".  In the name of "public health", it would obviously be better if we were all in better shape, and since the government is responsbile for mandating our medical visits, they must be responsible for the money being used, and in the name of "public health" can track people's weight, caloric intake, body fat, and hell, even activity level, in order to facilitate a better and healther populace.  Yea, kinda sounds a little far out, but 20yrs ago, we would have NEVER entertined the notion of allowing the Government to tell us when we're to go see a doctor, or when we're going to have some procedure.  Anything that had to do with our own bodies, was largely left to the individuals. 

And in this case, medical doctors know better, not the Government.

Yet it's Edwards and the 3rd party payer, the U.S Government, that would be making the decisions.  and there you are advocating such

[Universe Prince]

I cannot agree because as a society we all suffer when public health deteriorates or suffers a crisis.

I'm not opposed to the idea of the concept of "public health" in the sense of there being a "public health crisis". What I question is whether there is such a thing as a "collective health".

Being free to make the wrong choices is a fine theoretical concept Prince. We could get into endless hours of discussing hypothetical scenarios of "wrong choices" that start causing harm to others, or to society as a whole. Could we not?

I'm sure we could, but somewhere in there I'd likely point out that we cannot prevent all harm to others, and trying generally ends up causing harm in the long run. At some point, people ought to be free to live their lives and live with the consequences. Yes, laws can be useful, like laws against murder and fraud. When you start trying to micromanage people into safety, wellness and happiness, you start causing more harm than good, imo.

To me, this isn't an argument for neoliberal nitpicking. Do I like that the Government has to be the one to force the issue? No. If it were up to me the entire system would be completely different and it would be completely different entities working with local areas on public health matters. But, we are dealt the hand we have and while theoretical arguments are enjoyable - pragmatic issues are more important in the grand scheme of events.

Yes, I'm sure you would like to keep saying liberty is not practical so we can dispense with concern about it, but I think you're wrong to keep talking about liberty as theoretical rather than pragmatic. I realize your pregnant woman shooting up heroin example was supposed to show the impracticality of liberty, but I think your example is, for lack of a better or more direct word, stupid. You're trying to paint a horrible scenario and to suggest that without some government control pregnant women are going to shoot themselves full or heroin. Yeah, some might, but do you really think we're going to have an epidemic of pregnant women shooting heroin? While it's nice and theoretical to want to stop everyone from doing stupid and harmful things, pragmatically speaking it simply isn't possible. Mind you, no one is arguing against laws. But the notion that liberty is somehow impractical because everyone isn't safe if we don't have laws covering every aspect of human behavior, it is simply ridiculous. If what you want is to be made safe by rules, then I'm sure you can find someone to micromanage your life for you, but for the love of pizza, leave the rest of us alone.

For some of us, liberty is a standard. And I am sure I can find some religious fundamentalists (Christian, Muslim, or otherwise) who have some standards they would like to apply to the society in which we live. Saying we should apply standards sounds nice and righteous, but there are some standards I think we are better off not making into laws.

Strawman. I'll not answer that.

Is it? I think maybe you missed the point. Claiming "as citizens of the world we have to apply some standards to the society in which we live" sounds really nice. The question is then, which standards? I mean your quote there could be just a righteously spoken by Christian fundamentalists. I don't want them making all of their standards into laws. As I said, there are some standards I think we are better off not making into laws. Just because you'd like to make your standard into law doesn't mean doing so is the best course of action, and it does not mean that not making it a law is the worst course of action. And to repeat the most important part of my reply on this point, for some of us liberty is a standard. So why should I set aside my standard for yours? Oh yes, I know, you're going to tell me how liberty is some ivory tower ideal with no practical application in the real world. Poppycock. You can't achieve a responsible society by controlling it with legislation. The idea that the world would be better off if we could just control it is the impractical ideal. You cannot solve every problem in life with government regulated social control. You certainly do not make society more responsible by treating everyone like children who cannot be trusted to make decisions for themselves. And that certainly doesn't seem like a standard that an adult, liberal society would want imposed upon it. Is that a strawman? I think it is not.

Mental health check-ups are not the same as government medication or propaganda programs.

No, but government regulated mental health checkups might be.

You do realise that somewhere in Mumbai, insurance companies are keeping track of your doctor's visits and why you went to see the doctor? They keep track of your medications. They will even question your treatments as well. All of this is already well-recorded. More than that, Life Insurance companies will also ask for this information when researching for your policy. In some cases a court may also subpeona these documents.

None of this is new. It would just be a change of vendor.

No, it would not. The most obvious objection here being that my participation with an insurance company is voluntary while the government mandating my checkups and treatments and keeping track of them would not be voluntary. It would essentially amount to an involuntary invasion of privacy rather than a voluntarily agreed upon sharing of information. The difference is not insignificant.