President Edwards = Big Brother

If the government is providing your health care(through your tax dollars by the way) then the government is going to tell you what you can and can't do concerning your health care.

It's similar to a local problem we are having. The state of Arkansas government has told our local government school district that it has to build a new high school or fix up the old one. It will require $20-30 million dollars to do so. So we have a milleage increase election later this month. But it is a sham. Local control is a sham. We either pass it or else the state government will tak action against the local school district subsidiary. Therefore, the choice is either do what the state government dictates "voluntarily" or do what the state government dictates unwillingly. Either way the state government is dictating the outcome.

Our health care in these United States is becoming more and more like this. I fully expect that we will have universal, government-run health care in this country by at least 2020.

Most people in public office may mean to rule well, but they mean to rule.

 

I understand why Edwards feels this way, but on this I disagree with him. I strongly am in favor of universal health care coverage, but I would not favor such an requirement as mandatory doctor visits. Still, at this stage of the game, I favor Senator Edwards for President.

 

MP,

If I(the government) am paying for your health care can't I(the government) set the rules?

 

Yes, to some degree. Your insurance carrier today sets many rules. Preventive care visits, while a good idea, would be a nightmare to administer; as well as infringing on my right to be stupid and not take advantage of them.

What would the penalty be? Kick me out of the "universal" pool? I admire Edwards' efforts at health care reform, and lots of ideas need to be kicked around. However, this is one facet of his proposal that I think is a non-starter.

I actually think that the answer may lie in making all Americans part of one big "group" for group insurance. But reality will probably be competing "groups" with various options, much like the ill-conceived prescription program for seniors that went into effect a couple of years ago, and mainly benefits the drug companies rather than the seniors.

One thing we do have is 50 test beds...the 50 states, which is where I think the ultimate US program will come from. This gives us a way to trial various options at the state level to see what works best.

 

This Edwards [indecent language edited] thinks he's going to force "Christian Science" members to go doctors, or "Jehovah's Witnesses" to get blood transfusions?

 

If you do not want Edwards to be President, you better hope he does not get the Democratic nomination.

 

Calling him a pile of crap isn't very Christlike. You sound like Ann Coulter.

Disagreeing is one thing. Talking like that about someone is just rude and nasty.

 

I found out that there is a rule against swearing and psuedo swear words are also considered swear words, so before you guys get reported, you might want to reconsider throwing that little jim dandy around.

 

Bitsy dear, it pains me to do this, but I am going to have to report you for the use of "Jim Dandy"!

:love2:

 

ACK! what did I do now?

Is a search going to scare me to death?

 

I thought you were an strong advocate of "separation of church and state." If so, what do you think Christ, or being like him, has to do with politics?

 

Quit avoiding responsibility for your actions. I was not talking about separation of C & S. I was talking about your reprehensible words against another person.

 

Alright, reworded question: should every candidate or office holder be talked about as if he or she is Christ? should we have nothing but good to say about them? should we support the ones who would run their office as Christ would?

 

Until you acknowledge that you were wrong to refer to a fellow human being, as well as one who professes to be a brother in Christ, as a "piece of crap", I will not engage your debate. It was rude and vile. As much as I detest President Bush's policies, I would never refer to him as that. Like I said, you can disagree with a man's politics, but ad hominem name calling has no place in an intelligent discussion. Retracting mistaken lapses in good sense isn't all that hard. Defending them or avoiding admitting you were wrong, apparently is. It really doesn't matter...your words are here for all to see.

 

I didn't say that. I said "PILE of crap." Quote me accurately, please.

As is politics.

Got a better description? Let's hear it.

I did not consider this discussion intelligent from the beginning.

To your shock and dismay, that's what I intended.

 

No shock or dismay here. It's exactly what I expect from you...ad hominems, childish name calling, and an inability to admit you are wrong. My point is made. Thank you.