September 3, 2007

See Your Doctor Or Go To Jail?

John Edwards has a strange way of distilling foolishness to its essence, and he showed that talent yesterday when talking about his vision of health care. In remarks curiously ignored by newspapers today, Edwards insisted that his plan would force people to seek health evaluations, whether they desire one or not. It reveals the arrogance and the authoritarianism that waits around the corner when government-run healthcare gets imposed on a free society:

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."

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.

First, let's note the lack of coverage of this rather stunning statement from the Washington Post, New York Times, and Los Angeles Times. None of these leading newspapers found space for a major party presidential candidate who proposes that government force its citizens to see physicians. Nor does the one wire service to carry the story ask Edwards what happens to those who refuse to see their physician on a regular basis. They can't get dropped from the system, because it covers everyone, so what punishment do they get?

This comment reveals the increased authoritarian attitude that government-run health care produces. Women must get regular mammograms as a matter of law, not of personal choice or even availability. Everyone must report to the government-run health clinics to get inspected. Even worse, Edwards includes mental health screening as part of his grand plan -- which means that all American citizens must report for psychiatric evaluation, conducted by the government, on a regular basis.

What happens when someone fails a mental health exam? More importantly, who sets the standards for failure? Will government start considering those who oppose its system of forced health delivery as mentally unfit to live in the general population? The Soviet Union used a system of asylums to detain political dissidents, whom the state declared insane for their protestations against Communist ideals.

It won't take long before government uses its responsibility to start dictating most of life's decisions. Mayor Mike Bloomberg already has outlawed trans fats in restaurants in New York City; when government takes on the cost of health care, most dietary choices will disappear across the nation. Using the high cost of maintenance as an excuse, government will intrude further and further into the private decisions of Americans until we can no longer consider ourselves a free people. Big Brother will dictate the narrow set of options available to us.

And according to Edwards, refusal to obey will not be one of those options. In fact, it could be an indication of mental illness, and the refuseniks will wind up in padded rooms until they admit they love Big Brother.

UPDATE: The Insure Blog anticipated this asinine proposal two months ago and published this satirical look at mandatory health care. At least, I hope it was satirical:

The Federal Health Tribunals are empowered to impose heavy fines upon individuals who shirk their civic duty to follow health care orders, including refusal to alter lifestyle when so ordered (e.g., exercise, stop smoking, lose weight). The Tribunals also have authority to order health shirkers confined until treated. Depending on the seriousness of the condition, the confinement may be in a hospital or if hospitalization is not required, to (a) the Governors’ mansion, (b) the home of any elected State or local official, (c) any residence maintained by a member of Congress, or (d) any private home larger than 3,000 square feet.

The Tribunals also have the power to order a provider who refuses to deliver care that is ordered by a regional Federal Health professional, to perform unpaid community service within the Tribunal’s region.

Refusal by a health shirker or a health care provider to comply with an order of a Health Tribunal will carry penalties similar to contempt of Court and may involve fines or imprisonment or both.

If you laugh at the beginning, you will find yourself wondering by the end if this isn't almost exactly what Edwards has in mind. The only thing that's missing is the role of personal-injury attorneys, who I notice don't seem to be nationalized under this proposal.

UPDATE II: Peg Kaplan asked What If? two years ago at ... er ... What If?

Dave asks in the comments section, "Why is the same outrage here not brought up when the government forces us to vaccinate our children, wear seatbelts, drive cars with airbags, wear helmets when driving a motorcycles (in most states), etc? Are we already living in a communist country?" The use of seatbealts, airbags, and helmets are requirements for using government-owned roads and schools. You don't have to vaccinate your kids if they never attend public school, and you never have to use your seatbelts if you never drive on public roads.

Let me ask you this: what's the difference between saying that each citizen must report to his doctor once per year and subject himself to whatever tests the government requires, and demanding that each report to his local police station once per year and submit to a polygraph to determine their obediance to the law?


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference See Your Doctor Or Go To Jail?:

» Why isn't health care compulsory? from InsureBlog
I say it’s time for Congress to face up to Americans’ needs, and make health care compulsory. [Read More]

» McCain Takes Lead In South Carolina from The Pink Flamingo
PRIMARIES 2008 [Read More]

Comments (92)

Posted by Fight4TheRight | September 3, 2007 2:33 PM

The truly scary part of this all is that these aren't just campaign promises or carrots...John Edwards ACTUALLY BELIEVES that I will walk off a cliff like some sort of lemming if he does not look out for me.

John Edwards' view of the American people is that of a huge flock of lost sheep, wandering through thickets of poor health practices and baaing our way through daily economics beyond our comprehension.

He doesn't just see this as an "edge" for him versus Clinton or Obama, he truly is convinced i'm an empty-headed dolt who will perish without his leash.

Posted by Carol Herman | September 3, 2007 2:42 PM

Is it me? But I think the limosine liberals, for the most part, dress in drag. Uggs. Jeans. Cut-offs. You name it. Everything BUT a suit and tie. And, men shed their hats long ago.

Too bad, though, we can't convince them to start wearing the red velvet drapes, while supporting high conical hats. Because these "priests" sure have the world, backwards.

Here? I think John Edwards sounds this stupid, in order to get headline space. His chances to win? You're pulling my leg, RIIGHT?

What Edwards is doing, however, is trolling the riches of high powered attorney's offices; where he's learned the arm of "vacuuming up dollars."

So, he said "Mental Health For All." And, you don't think he sounds like a jerk, here? That he's so far off base, he's pitching balls far removed from any playing field where people care.

Bottom line? This stupid "bumper-sticker," similar t the one he has on "Terrorism isn't in Irak." Or some other such nonsense ... PLAYS!

If you depended on the limosine liberals to give you front page space, would you have such a total disregard of reality?

Because if it's working for Edwards, how are these "facts" messing with Ron Paul's mind?

And, how much worse is it for the Bonkeys, now? I think they're turning electionneering into a "special olympics" event. Where the next Mongoloid that comes to bat, gets nominated by the stupid team to run for office. Hope to the unborn? Or just the perenially stupid?

Don't worry. It's not contagious.

Posted by Mangas Colorados | September 3, 2007 2:44 PM

Among the things I find disturbing about this is that Edwards does not use the subjunctive or future tense in his claim, but speaks as if this were already enacted. This is the technique of a used car salesman, speaking as if the car is yours already, trying to spark a sense of ownership. Now watch and see if he starts mirroring the listener the next time he channels the unborn.

Posted by Carol Herman | September 3, 2007 2:46 PM

Folks, Dick Cheney is smart enough to write his own book.

And, from what I've read, Rove intends to have his autobiography out by Christmas.

Do you hear Fitzmas flurries in the background?

Is it possible the left doesn't bury its dead?

Posted by ich dien | September 3, 2007 2:49 PM

Where's he been? Women must get mammograms? OK, what about men? Does he know how many men develop breast cancer? For them the exam is a choice while the women are pressed into it? Thanks a lot you igorant tarheel.

Posted by g.scott | September 3, 2007 2:54 PM

Ironic that that the Edwards can afford the best health care money can buy, yet his wife still gets cancer. When she dies will he sue her doctors?

Posted by Old Mike | September 3, 2007 2:57 PM

I did a double take when while channel surfing I heard the above quotes come out of Edwards mouth. It may have disappeared under the watchfull eye of the MSM, but we'll see it again if Edwards manages to be on the Democratic ticket.

Posted by Les Nessman | September 3, 2007 2:59 PM

Where's N.O.W. and the 'Keep-The-Gov't-Off-Of-My-Ovaries' crowd? Where's the 'womens-right-to-choose' crowd?
Do they agree that the .gov should tell them what to do with their bodies?

And won't we get some form of this under HillaryCare, too?

Posted by viking01 | September 3, 2007 3:07 PM

Whatever is not forbidden is compulsory.

Pol Pot would be proud! Simply diagnose all non-Socialist opposition as medically defective then leak the files in Reno-esque fashion. Light the torches. Sharpen the pitchforks. Build the camps. Heat the ovens.

Apparently John Edwards shares angry Hillary's vision of a new Stalinism, a new Reich where those who can be deemed unfit are more readily subject to further, shall we say, government processing. Sorry Mr. Jones the clipboard here says you're not "okay" and voted for Reagan too therefore re-education may not be needed instead of eliminating you untermensch.

[fade to Leni Riefenstahl's film of Hitler's shiny, private tri-motor aircraft as he peers down through wispy clouds at grinning Brown Shirts doing calisthenics. Ein Volk, Ein Reich! Wagner background music, optional.]

Posted by Les Nessman | September 3, 2007 3:10 PM

g.scott -

From the Protein Wisdom blog comments :

"..Elizabeth Edwards had intensive hormone therapy to prepare her “too old for this” body to have those 2 beautiful children.

Now, you wouldn’t trade those children for the world…but, have the Edwardses considered that “too much” medical treatment might actually be at the root of her current condition ?

You know, once the women’s initiative study determined that HRT (hormone replacement therapy) was actually causing breast cancer, I’m very very surprised at the lack of a class action lawsuit.

Who will the Breck Girl sue next? Who knows?

Posted by kingronjo | September 3, 2007 3:11 PM

Cap, you really, really refuse to go far enough with these leftists. For some reason you refuse to pull the trigger. I have been noticing in your posts that you keep assigning them benefits of the doubt that they are no longer entitled to. I could go pick through your posts to make my point, but its Labor Day and I refuse to do the labor.

Anyway, the American Left has started to show who and what they truly believe. They, like all good little Socialist/Communists throughout history (Soviets, National Socialists, Trotskyites, Maoists, etc) are going to make their way the only way. Period. Look at college campuses as an example where the only diversity missing is that of opinion. Dare you go against them and they have no problem resorting to physical intimidation and/or violence.

So, to say that Edwards' authoritarianism only extend's to Health Care is only partially correct. They will shut down anything that is not toeing the line. Perhaps your blog one day will be shuttered if all goes there way. And don't think we Americans are immune to it. Venezuela WAS a fairly prosperous and cosmopolitan country.

Posted by eaglewings | September 3, 2007 3:20 PM

Next the government will have block by block activities coordinators, so that you will be required to participate in group exercise activities for at least one hour per day (lowering heart attacks and other cardivascular diseases as necessary restriction on your freedom not to exercise) on pain of jail, then will go all foods libs consider to be 'junk', you will have to present a gov't id to eat at McDs etc, and if the gov't checks you are eating the Big Macs and Fries (large size) instead of salads, off to the hoosegow for you.

Posted by burt | September 3, 2007 3:46 PM

Edwards is late. He was supposed to arrive in 1984, Oh well, better late than never, but he should lose one hundred authoritarian brownie points. I assume the dental plan includes insertion of the tracking beacon. Between the mental health and vision plans they should be able to distort realty enough to have one walking around praising Big Brother.

Ed, neither you nor I is consistent. However, I'm more equal than you on proscriptions. Trans fats have damaged many more people than Vioxx without providing any health benefits. The ratio of damaged people is probably of the order of a million.

Posted by flenser | September 3, 2007 4:15 PM

Give Edwards his due. He is correct in what he says, given the assumption that we adapt a national health care system.

If we do have such a system, then do we really want people living in an unhealthy fashion and then passing the finiancial consequences on to the rest of us? (Mind you, to some extent this happens now.)

The underlying idea of universal healthcare pretty much requires something like this. Exceptions will be granted on the basis of political power. For example, I don't imagine gays will be required to abandon their unhealthy lifestyle.

Posted by skeptical | September 3, 2007 4:16 PM

In my state, authorities mandated "preventive" care in the form of vaccinations, although I know some people who haven't done this with their children. The Amish refused, but the court said the state has a compelling interest, and forces them to get vaccinated.

The state also forces them to put reflectors on the backs of their horse carriages, buggies, and wagons.

It also forces us to wear seatbelts, but motorcyclists don't have to wear helmets here.

And no one here is allowed to open a bank account without a tax number reported directly to the federal government.

Posted by flenser | September 3, 2007 4:16 PM

FYI, that last took about 15 secs to post. A big improvement on what it was, but still slower than most blogs.

Posted by hgstern | September 3, 2007 4:27 PM

Thank you so much for the link, Cap'n. Mike does great work, and this one was one of his best.

Posted by Drew | September 3, 2007 4:28 PM

"...The only thing that's missing is the role of personal-injury attorneys, who I notice don't seem to be nationalized under this proposal."

Who do you suppose is going to run the asylums?

Nurse Wratched with a JD.

Posted by pk | September 3, 2007 4:28 PM

in the sixties i lived in an apartment with a view of a main intersection. occasionally we would see a person (quite seldom the same one) standing out in the middle of the street talking to someone but no one could see that someone. the police would come along with a straight jacket and toddle him off.

last week i was walking down the street in a veterans hospital area and here was another fellow standing in the middle of the street talking to someone but no one could see that someone.

the difference was that in 1970 the guy was a nut. in 2007 he (not the same guy) thought that he was a doctor (thats up for continued discussion). the guy last week had a small silver/aluminum colored device in his hand.

at the speed that the government modifies rules, regulations and instructions do you really want them to decide whether the guy is a nut or a doctor.


Posted by Bennett | September 3, 2007 4:41 PM

John Edwards is never going to be President of the United States. We should keep this in mind. So it seems sort of pointless to address his statements on their merits as if he had any hope of ever being in a position to mandate anything.

But I'll do it anyway. Before we get to preventative medical care, I think we need to start with preventing people from being born at all. If we prevent people from being born, we can better control the cost of the government program and it will be easier to monitor who is in compliance with the government's medical care mandates and who isn't.

Now, the abortion lobby has done a fair amount of yeoman's work in this area. But it's not enough.

The Chinese have an excellent program but it doesn't go far enough either. Requiring a woman to abort the fetus after she's pregnant is a drain on government funded medical care because it means a doctor's visit.

What we need is a program that requires government permission before a pregnancy carried to term can happen at all.

This means government permission before sexual activity can occur. Because that activity might lead to a pregnancy, which itself has not been authorized.

The best way to prevent people from getting sick is by not having people at all.

Posted by Dave D | September 3, 2007 4:58 PM

Ok, why is anybody still covering him? His bid for the presidency was over when he announced he was going to raise taxes to take care of health care.(I mean after Mondale does anybody really think the Dems would nominate a guy who's promising increased taxes?)

Posted by unclesmrgol | September 3, 2007 4:59 PM

If healthcare could be affordable, then Edwards might have something. But, before healthcare can become affordable, we have to get rid of the leechers and suckers drawing unwarranted income from the healthcare system:

  1. Illegal aliens

  2. Welfare cheats

  3. Malpractice attornies

  4. Billing frauds

I'm sure Edwards understands the problem firsthand and is willing to do what it takes to rein it in.

Posted by SkyWatch | September 3, 2007 5:05 PM

You all, have not put two and two together yet.

Take Edwards mandatory check-ups and Hillary's new Brown shirt corps. put them together and shake. With Hillary's new corps you have an beuocratic army legally able to operate within the US. They will be the enforcers of all the mandatory regulations with the ability to cover a person in so much paper work as to make life unlivable unless you comply.

Posted by T A M N Y , T . D . | September 3, 2007 5:06 PM

" . . . . Distilling Foolishness To Its Essence . " My appreciation to the Captain for a turn - of - phrase that moved me to laugh . The field of prospective Democratic Presidential nominees is predictably bleak , but none are as abysmal as Representative KUCINICH and former Senator EDWARDS . The intrusiveness of the proposal for MANDATORY exams in a health care regime proposed by Edwards is downright offensive , and ought to be interpreted as such even by his own supporters . ( I wonder whether AMANDA MARCOTTE and MELISSA McEWEN would be game to receive obligatory pap smears at the Federal Government ' s schedule if their guy Edwards were somehow to win the Presidency ) .

Posted by obladioblada | September 3, 2007 5:09 PM

Let's see, women control their own bodies and we're supposed to be pro-choice when it comes to abortion but not when-- oh, hell, never mind. I give up trying to follow the logic.

Posted by MarkJ | September 3, 2007 5:35 PM

Something to chew on:

Revolutions and insurgencies have begun over much less than what's in Dr. Silky Pony's Kickapoo Cure-All, High Colonic, and Worm Exterminator.

Posted by bayam | September 3, 2007 5:59 PM

Captain, you seem somewhat afraid of getting a mental health exam...

Posted by Paul | September 3, 2007 6:02 PM

I am an evangelical follower of Christ... since there are some leftist psychological studies that state that religious belief is a result of mental illness, will Edwards' so-called plan insist that I go in for 'reprogramming'?

That's a bit scary!

Posted by Ray | September 3, 2007 6:03 PM

Here's one question people who believe in a nation health care system has never answered for me: What about asking for another medical opinion? In a national health care system you don't get a choice of who will treat you, the government will make all those choices for you. Doctors are like everyone else and they make mistakes in diagnostics. For example, I have Crohn's and for close to 30 years I was diagnosed with everything from "pre-ulcerative condition" to "nervous bowel syndrome." It wasn't until 7 years ago that I was correctly diagnosed and an effective treatment could begin. Too bad that it was over 20 years too late and by this time most of my colon was damaged beyond repair. I ended up having most of my colon removed because of the fact that doctors made mistakes about the nature of my condition. I don't blame the doctors for what happened (most doctors never even heard of Crohn's until a years ago) but I would hate to have a large number of people having to rely on just one MD to make all decisions for them as no MD in the world can correctly recognize and effectively treat all the possible medical conditions they will have to face. Diagnostic mistakes are bound to be made, and in a nation health care system, those mistakes will most likely be missed as very few people will have a chance to get a second opinion. Talk about a disaster in the making!

Posted by richard mcenroe | September 3, 2007 6:03 PM

MarkJ -- You're behind the curve on your buzzwords son. "Insurgency" is out; they're "militants" now.

Bayam -- and your mental health caregivers are providing you with too much internet access. It overstimulates you and you say foolish things.

Posted by Jim | September 3, 2007 6:32 PM

Can anyone say communist!

Posted by obladioblada | September 3, 2007 6:45 PM

I'm still looking forward to picketing Dem offices with my "Keep your laws off my body" sign.


Posted by Carol Herman | September 3, 2007 7:00 PM

We should explain to the children, that in simpler times a presidential candidate could run on a 3-word sentence. And, win. I LIKE IKE.

Of course, John Edwards is only shilling this "run" to see how many suckers give him money. I sometimes wonder about that.

From nowhere, millions of dollars fly in through open windows. You don't even have to stick your leg out, sideways, to go under the stall door; to retrieve cash your 'neighbor' dropped out of his pockets.

The other thing? I don't believe a word of it. Not about how legs travel outward from stall doors. And, not John Edwards claims about "mental health." If he wins, would he force us all to pay for his sex change surgery? Is that what he's after?

Sometimes I forget what a campaign should even be about these days. We get the Breck Lady as if he's a commercial for hair soap.

Usually, I don't even look. But these antics pop up on the sites I read! Can you tell me what it is about the Silk Pony that spells "presidential timber?" (Timber. A tone of voice. High pitched. And, you can sing at the opera.) Nah. It can't be that kind'a timber. Can it?

The Bonkeys are brain dead, now.

Posted by burt | September 3, 2007 7:07 PM

Ray, I am very sorry about your Crohn's. I have had a few misdiagnoses which could have resulted in disasters but didn't, such as a melanoma that supposedly wasn't worth a visit to a dermatologist. Specialists make occasional mistakes and family practice MDs are out of their depth on numerous occasions.

You said, "Diagnostic mistakes are bound to be made, and in a nation health care system, those mistakes will most likely be missed as very few people will have a chance to get a second opinion." While this is true, it doesn't matter since the important people like Hillary, John and maybe Barack will still get good care.

Posted by Burt | September 3, 2007 7:16 PM

After carefully considering Mr. Edwards' comments, I find that I may be in agreement with him. His statement, distilled to its essence, is: If you elect me president, obviously mental health is a great problem in this country. Therefore, you must all submit yourselves to psychiatric evaluation and treatment before you do something even crazier.

Posted by Len | September 3, 2007 7:19 PM

I don't understand why you all are so afraid of going to see a doctor. What, exactly, are you trying to hide?

Posted by Mike Feehan | September 3, 2007 7:19 PM

"Well Person" = a patient whose diagnostic workup is not yet complete.

Posted by viking01 | September 3, 2007 7:21 PM

John Edwards already has been a lawmaker as are many others (Kennedy, Leahy, Levin) whom share his central control views. In many ways that has made him more dangerous than as a mere, lousy presidential candidate. Edwards echoes the Lefty group think.

Given the current socialist - communist binge afflicting and overtaking the Democrat party there's yet another angle. Now that many Democrats seek all means to undermine their own military there's plenty of ways to twist science to suit their agenda.

Visualize a communist psychiatrist of Jocelyn Elders level incompetence analyzing an army recruit. "So the reason you want to join the army is you want to defend your country even if it means losing your own life and taking the lives of many others? And to do so in a group formation wearing similar clothing? Uhh, yes doctor, as duty for country may require it."

Communist psychiatric diagnosis: Candidate latently suicidal while seeking to kill numerous rivals via gang participation wearing gang colors. 4-F. Unfit for duty. Suggest aggressive re-education and sensitivity training.

That's only one example of how the touchy-feely nut-case left could harm the military they loathe by deeming everyone willing to serve as being unfit on the basis of willingness to kill the enemy and if need be sacrifice themselves for their country.

Posted by GM | September 3, 2007 7:21 PM

I have a market capitalist solution but it’s going to cost a little money. Start a nonprofit NGO that offers any leftist who is willing to give up their U.S. citizenship and move to France or anywhere that is not U.S. territory a free one-way ticket, moving expenses, and $50,000 in cash (OK make it $100,000). They can keep any of their securities (foreigners can own U.S. securities) but will have to sell any real property. We can guarantee market value at the peak of the real estate boom and a tax free transaction (that will require a little tweak of the tax code). Of course it will have to be on a first come first serve basis and depend on the level of contributions. I’ll bet that if there is even very modest interest in this offer the contributions will start pouring in! It might get 25% maybe even 30% to leave. Sound expensive? Not as expensive as socialism! Just look at the economic basket cases that system has left behind.

Posted by Charlie Foxtrot | September 3, 2007 7:30 PM

Why is every time the Dems come forward with their version of great health care, it always involves punitive actions alongside the proposed healing?

Additionally, given the record of socialized medicine "solutions" around the world, exactly how are we going to handle our annual appointments, when it takes 12 months just to the top of the list?

Posted by Ray | September 3, 2007 8:03 PM

I wonder if John Edwards would like to emulate Europe's centrally controlled medical system if he realized that Europe had this type of system in place during the numerous plagues that killed so many people in the recent past. Europe's doctors have, for centuries, been restricted as to the availability and delivery of medical treatments, and even medical research. Look at the medical history of Europe, any doctor who defied established medical practices, like something as simple as lancing the boils of plague victims, was persecuted as those types of treatments violated "official" medical practices. That's not a very effective system in which to entrust everyone's health.

How can any medical advancements be made when every doctor will be required to follow only the "official" treatment procedures, which is just what this type of national health care system will impose upon every doctor? Under a European system (which is what Edwards and the rest are trying to create here in America), even the production and use of aspirin would have not been allowed as it wasn't part of established treatment procedures. Is this really the kind of health care system we want to impose on America?

Posted by newton | September 3, 2007 8:07 PM

C.S. Lewis talked about people like Kim Jong John Edwards a long time ago.

Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.

Posted by patrick neid | September 3, 2007 8:14 PM

This is just the normal progression from Hillary's criminal prosecution for doctors who treated patients outside of her original plan. Penalties included jail time.

Posted by viking01 | September 3, 2007 8:33 PM

Not to mention if your gummint quality sutures start popping like bolts on the Big Dig there will be no cutting in the DMV size line to get your giblets pushed back in by Dr. Kervorkian.

Visions of the film Brazil where a central control typo gets Mr. Buttle offed instead of the rebellious Mr. Tuttle then the government bureaucracy has to edit their mistake.

Rest assured that in Hillarycare it won't be your doctor doing the checkup it'll be their doctor unless you really want to be McDougaled or Fosterized.

Posted by docjim505 | September 3, 2007 8:38 PM

Some commenters have expressed their opinion that we're worrying about nothing; John Edwards will never be president, so who cares what he thinks?

Folks, don't be naive!

First of all, who seriously thought that a morally-impaired Arkansas shyster would ever get into the Oval Office? Or, for that matter, a Texan who mangles the English language with Archie Bunkeresque regularity?

Second (and more importantly), Edwards isn't alone in these ideas: he is simply being more forthright than the rest of the filthy commies running for the democrat nomination. Ordering people to go for medical exams is a logical part of nationalized healthcare. It's likely that The Dope hasn't thought this far ahead, but you can be your sweet Aunt Sally's ass that the Hilldabeast has.

Finally, not everybody will regard this sort of thing as an outrageous assault on our personal liberties. Witness bayam: his / her only comment was to imply that Cap'n Ed must fear having a mental exam. Liberals LOVE state control of everything. Despite the evidence provided by the failed Soviet Union and communist states, despite testimony about the inefficiencies of socialized medicine in western Europe, despite the evidence we see in our own country of the failures of Medicare and the VA, liberals still believe that (for lack of a better term) a benevolent dictatorship is the best solution to any problem. Want to eliminate health problems in America? Order everybody to have regular checkups. Daily exercise. Weight control. No smoking. No trans-fats. No meat. To anybody but a liberal, such commandments are cause for outrage: "How DARE you tell me how to live my life???" Libs, though, love it.

I would like to build on a point made by skeptical (September 3, 2007 4:16 PM): we've already started down the road. With the best of intentions, we mandate seatbelt use. A sensible law, you might say. To some extent, I would agree. BUT... Why are we giving the government the power to run our lives? And once we give the government some power, what's to prevent it taking more and more and more? Trans-fats are bad, so we shouldn't be allowed to eat them. Cigarettes are bad, so we shouldn't be allowed to smoke them. Meat is bad. Alcohol is bad. Butter. Salt. Sugar.

Do you REALLY want politicians making these kinds of decisions about your quality of life? Remember this the next time you nod your head and think, "Good idea" when some politician passes a law banning something.

Posted by John F Not Kerry | September 3, 2007 8:50 PM

Posted by ich dien | September 3, 2007 2:49 PM

"Where's he been? Women must get mammograms? OK, what about men? Does he know how many men develop breast cancer? For them the exam is a choice while the women are pressed into it?"

"mammogram", "pressed into it" LOL

Posted by John F Not Kerry | September 3, 2007 8:55 PM

The reason the MSM won't touch this is that they know how much of a bad thing it would be for the Dems, and want to protect them from the fallout?

One issue I have with nationalized health care is what it does to doctors. Can anybody guess where the good doctors in Canada go when they are finally fed up with their system? America, where they can actually be compensated well and have a life while taking care of people. If this system ever gets implemented, many medical schools will have to be closed down for lack of applicants.

Posted by Ray | September 3, 2007 9:00 PM

"Some commenters have expressed their opinion that we're worrying about nothing..."

As my wife would say: Don't get your tits in a vice! Oh, wait a minute... Never mind.

Posted by Ray | September 3, 2007 9:09 PM

"Remember this the next time you nod your head and think, "Good idea" when some politician passes a law banning something."

Like banning murder or theft? Some laws (and the government control that enforces them) are necessary to protect society but we need to be very careful as to how much control we are willing to allow to others. Like you, I think national health care would allow too much control to the government and far too little control to the individual.

Posted by gibsonz | September 3, 2007 9:18 PM

Edwards needs to stick to chasing ambulances and filing frivilous lawsuits,the things scumbag lawyers do best!

Posted by dave | September 3, 2007 9:27 PM

Nobody responded to Skeptical, so I'll bring up the same point so I can be ignored as well, since there's not a good answer to his point.
Why is the same outrage here not brought up when the government forces us to vaccinate our children, wear seatbelts, drive cars with airbags, wear helmets when driving a motorcycles (in most states), etc? Are we already living in a communist country?
Why does the FDA even exist? Why is the government deciding that something is or is not in the best interest of my health? Why don't they just provide information about a drug, and let the consumer decide?
The government already makes health decisions for us. "Forcing" someone to get preventative care, something that will save countless lives, is not exactly the most evil thing a government can do. 18,000 people a year die from lack of health care. 100,000 a year can be saved by a few simple measures:

A full preventive care system for all citizens would save countless more lives. But only an evil, communist government would be interested in saving hundreds of thousand of lives a year. It's the "freedom-loving", "family values" governments like we have now that allow these people to die. But at least nobody can say we are Commies. What a wonderful country.

Posted by Donald Palmer | September 3, 2007 9:41 PM

It's been a long time since I read 1984, but didn't that chiller of a tale start out with Winston Smith doing state imposed calesthetics in his apartment, and being chided by Big Brother for being a slacker? George Orwell saw this train coming down the tracks 60 years ago.

Posted by Labamigo | September 3, 2007 9:52 PM

Why not? If the state can force you to go to school, and can force you to file income tax returns, why can't it force you to see a doctor?

Posted by leucanthemum b | September 3, 2007 10:03 PM

Dave repeats the question asked by skeptical, about the difference between inoculation and more extensive mandatory health care. Why accept mandatory inoculation, if we aren't willing to go whole hog?

The difference is, when you refuse to have yourself and your children vaccinated against a virus, you are making yourselves vectors by which a pathogen such as smallpox, polio, tuberculosis, etc., can be spread, potentially to kill or drastically weaken millions.

If I refuse to have an annual physical because I'm more than just a little annoyed having my melons squoze, it affects my health and mine alone. If I should miss being diagnosed with cancer, it's my own damned fault, and I'm the only one physically affected. Everybody else needs to butt out.

The difference should always be in the focus of the government. "Public good" is okay, up to a point. "For your own good..." they can kiss my hindquarters.

Posted by redherkey | September 3, 2007 10:13 PM

Once again, trial attorney aristocrat Edwards is ahead of the game!

On the topic of mandatory physical and mental health-care checks and state-determined consequences for non-compliant results, has anyone noticed how much those damn senior citizens are costing us? As if things were bad enough a few years ago as all these dreadful smokers and drinkers hit 70, now we've got a slew of boomers hitting retirement and, get this, demanding FREE PRESCRIPTION DRUGS!

Edwards has been clever enough to not say the obvious, but we're gonna have to have the state take some serious action on these unproductive fossils. Think of the benefit to society we'll have by "retiring" these useless individuals at 72. Give them two years of retirement bliss, and then terminate them. As good boomers, they'll understand we simply can't afford the financial drain they represent. Think of the children! Think of the money saved that can be funneled into government spending! Heck, by whacking a senior, we might just get a grip on global warming by reducing all of those unnecessary carbon footprints.

We're cranking out the new bumper stickers now:

"Edwards 2008: Snuffing out Seniors for a New Tomorrow!"

Posted by Bennett | September 3, 2007 10:31 PM

"If I refuse to have an annual physical because I'm more than just a little annoyed having my melons squoze, it affects my health and mine alone."

The left's argument back to this is that it doesn't really affect just you. If you refuse to submit to preventative care, you will eventually get sick, you will have to be cared for and that will be drain on the system.

There are so many problems with this idea, it's laughable. What do we do with people who refuse to do what the doctor orders? What if he tells me to cut out salt and I don't do it? How will anyone know if I'm complying or not?

I think there might also be a 4th Amendment issue here and I'm not sure how the Senator would get around this. I have the right to be secure in my person from unreasonable searches. Is it reasonable that the government mandate the search of my bodily orifices under some kind of vague preventative medicine rationale?

Currently the govt is not allowed to force a suspect to submit to surgical procedures to remove a bullet (with some limited exceptions). But the government could force me to submit to invasive medical exams even when I don't have any illness that threatens the public welfare?

All very Kafkaesque.

Posted by Ledger1 | September 3, 2007 10:32 PM

Barrister John Edwards seems to need a medical check up right now.

Although saturated with snake oil I think he can be saved if treated in time. Let’s start with a psychological check-up.

Standing in front of jurists channeling dead infants is such a powerful role to act that it may have certain side-effects. Being drawn into multi-million dollar settlements and leading a life of conspicuous consumption can lead to a superiority complex, pseudologia fantastica, and delusions of grandeur.

Clinically speaking John Edwards show symptoms of pathological misrepresentation (Lying).

The symptoms include a person who often embellishes his stories with what he believes will impress people.

The affected person has to create elaborate myths to reconcile his stories with the facts.

If the psychosis has reached a chronic stage he believes the lie he is telling to be true, at least in public or before a jury, and is playing the role.

As with a number of incurable obsessive-compulsive disorders, the only cure is a prefrontal lobotomy.

In the interest of cost effectiveness Dr. Walter Freeman invented the “ice pick lobotomy” using an ice pick and rubber mallet instead of standard surgical lobotomy.

It’s minimally invasive surgery where an ice pick is hammered into skull through the nostrils and then wiggled around.

In situations where ice picks are prohibitively expensive, or a buget short fall, one could probably use chop sticks sharpened in a pencil sharpener.

Freeman advocated this procedure for patients with even fairly mild symptoms. He personally performed the operation on thousands of people and promoted the idea of lobotomy as a casual procedure, claiming it would one day be as common as dental work. Which is just what we need in government.

Freeman's advocacy led to great popularity for lobotomy as a general cure for all perceived ills, including misbehavior in children. Ultimately between 40,000 and 50,000 patients were lobotomized.

This is exactly the type of forced medicine John Edwards advocates. And, he should be the first to use it.

See: pictue of medical Ice picks

See: psychosurgery

Posted by leucanthemum b | September 3, 2007 11:15 PM

Bennett, I think Kafka may have been understating the situation.

And, to my own defense, I mentioned specifically, that the physical impact was exclusive to me. If the Leftwits want to worry about the drain to the system from somebody like me, then maybe they ought to consider allowing some of us to "opt out" from the start.

Like my cat, I'd rather go out into the woods and die quietly than spend years attached to tubes and wires in a nasty, sterile, government-run facility where I earn nothing but resentment from those who are required to empty my bedpan.

OTOH, I thought I read somewhere recently that doctors in the UK are responding to the "drain on the system" from people who smoke, or drink heavily, or are obese and generally inactive, by refusing to treat them for "related disorders or illnesses". Not sure I approve. Next they'll be saying old people won't get treated because they allowed themselves to age. And babies... well, I think somebody already covered that problem, above.

Posted by leucanthemum b | September 3, 2007 11:26 PM

I decided I couldn't ignore this bit at the end of Dave's comment: But only an evil, communist government would be interested in saving hundreds of thousand of lives a year. It's the "freedom-loving", "family values" governments like we have now that allow these people to die.

The operative word, here, is "allow". If, under the freedom-loving, family values system we now have, I asked for help... I would not be denied. I have not been denied, even when I had zero insurance, zero cash and zero assets to liquidate in order to pay. I was still given full, fair treatment as needed. And I continue to have the right to refuse treatment, to walk out of a hospital, Against Doctor's Advice, if I choose.

It's still pretty much a free country. Why does that bother you so much?

Posted by Bennett | September 3, 2007 11:38 PM

"doctors in the UK are responding to the "drain on the system" from people who smoke, or drink heavily, or are obese and generally inactive, by refusing to treat them for "related disorders or illnesses."

Well, the obvious solution is eugenics, right? Genetic engineering to eliminate the all the bad stuff, addictive behaviors, obesity, schizophrenia, diabetes, the list is endless.

I think someone else made a start in this area if I remember correctly. Encouraged doctors to do a lot of creative research trying to figure out how to eliminate the undesirables. And implemented other programs to speed the process along. Unfortunately his efforts were cut short. But his vision lives on.

A super race, it's only a gene splicing moment away.

Posted by Jimmie | September 3, 2007 11:47 PM

Dave, there are quite a few people who object strongly to being forced into seat belts and helmets and airbags. Poke around a few motorcycle aficionado websites and see for yourself, why don't you?

They are generally derided as cranks or "loony Libertarians". If you don't see them, you're not looking very much at all.

Posted by Carol Herman | September 4, 2007 12:13 AM


Afficionado's, as you call them, be it those who don't wear seatbelts. Or helmets when they are on bikes. Once they get into accidents, are called organ donors.

Posted by Pho | September 4, 2007 12:34 AM

I have only 2 thoughts on this particular proposal by Mr Edwards...

First, for those of you enamored (a very small number here, I would imagine) with the concept of government run care... realize that it does indeed exist in this country. It isn't mandatory or hugely widespread or oppressive really. But it exists in the form of thousands upon thousands of varied government run clinics and hospitals across the country. One small corner of the agency in which I work operates and/or funds a number of such operations.

If you're enamored with the concept I'd suggest volunteering in or working for such an entity for some period of time exceeding 6 months... and then decide whether or not you'd EVER want to step foot in the establishment as a "client" for anything more complex than getting a quick vaccination.

I've sat in such places, and done non-medical work in some. I wouldn't go within 100 yards of one, unless that was the ONLY place I could go... and I was desperate. Which ironically is often the primary client base. My own desire to never become a "client", is 80% of my opposition to having us go to fully 100% government run medical care.

The other 20% being a fundamental opinion that it's not really the business of government... neither is it constitutional on a federal level.

But my first reaction to Edwards' proposal...

Soylent Green is made of People!

Posted by Niccolo | September 4, 2007 12:58 AM

Has our esteemed barrister and lawmaker given Thought #1 to the millions in this country who Don't Officially Exist?

Starting with maybe 12 million illegals. Add a few million on the run from bench warrants and jail/prison sentences. A bunch more dodging child support or other creditors. Still more who have deliberately absented themselves from the system -- disappeared off the radar -- because they resented the intrusiveness of it all. Top it all off with the underclass of drug hustlers and assorted crazies, bums and street people.

How are we to suppose Mr. Edwards, Esq., and all of the rest of the Utopian Socialists plan to incorporate them into the New Health Care System?

(Note the propaganda values here: "Health Care" actually translates to "access to the medical products and services industries". "Free" is implied. Consider how "access to the automotive products and services industries" would translate on the same basis.)

"Alles muss anders sein!" "Everything must be different!" The battlecry of the Democrats. But never a coherent plan: never a plan at all. Just "The people want Change!"

...See and for all the (usually -- eventually -- gory details.)

Posted by Thomas | September 4, 2007 2:32 AM

Everbody including Mr Edwards knows he is never going to win,so he feels safe in saying such stupid things.That said my personal opinion is that universal health care will come in sooner rather than later.Health care is one thing that americans cant import from china,so its cost will go up while incomes will come down.Incomes will come down because americans will be exporting all the good jobs to china,india,vietnam,phillipines and the menial jobs will be given to illegal mexicans.I read somewhere "they send us poisoned food and toys and we give them worthless securities(CDOs and other alphabet soups)" but creditors are catching on .China for example is buying up hard assets-mines in australia,gold,mines in africa.So what u say?America is running on credit and one needs someone to lend the money.If china decides to buy mines instead of propping up the us government u would have problems.If the government stop spending the money on helping stupid arabs who will happily kill each other (shias and sunni will start doing that when the us pulls out) and spend it on building american infrastructure,american schools,hospitals and start soverign funds to buy hard assets (china has 1.2 trillion dollars in assets and no morals - a potent combination).Spend more on cia human intelligence-humans are always better than computers -if u dont believe me look at the quant(quantitative ) funds which use computers insteas of human stock brokers.If military action needs to be taken ,never put troops on the ground at least not in such large numbers that al qaeda can take potshots at.Once the cia agent on the ground has convinced al qaeda fanboy that he can get better ass in peshawar than the 70 houris in paradise in exchange for the location of mullah omar,use precision strikes.But the human intelligence is severely crippled by lack of funding-they are used to build hospitals for iraqis or rather stolen by the contractors.What the f**k is america coming to I wonder.A lot needs to be done.But is any of this going to happen,NO.And a price will have to be paid eventually.Food,energy and healthcare costs will go up.Ron Paul seems to say some good things but he is more of a curiosity rather than anything else for the general public. A breaking point will be reached at which some form of government support will come in for healthcare.In the meantime hmo,pharma will be good buys while waiting.To sell at the first signs of national health care.I am a medical doctor from india and I can tell u trans fat is not a "dietary choice" or at least it shouldnt be.Now u know why ur cardiologist is so happy to see u.And why am I concerned- they say "when america sneezes the whole world catches a cold" and where do u think the alqaeda fan boys would go from iraq - they will come straight to kashmir for jihad.For those who dont know ,kashmir is a state in india where islamic terrorists are figthing the indian government.

Posted by TheBullfrog | September 4, 2007 3:20 AM

At the risk of saying something already stated here, some time ago I read a theory that the way in which Hillary would win the Democratic nomination would be for other non-electable candidates (Edwards, Kucinich, Kerry, Gore, et al) to position themselves at the far, far Stalinist left so that Hillary's positions would seem moderate by comparison. This is the only strategy which would enable her previously-uttered and politically indigestible statements to seem more centrist. The DNC and its puppeteers (Soros, Beijing, Jakarta, etc.) are not above this type of mass hypnotism. Be afraid - be very afraid...

Posted by swabjockey05 | September 4, 2007 6:47 AM

Shipmates, You have to hand it to the Shyster. At least he's honest. He says he's a hard core communist. His "opinion" on this issue proves he is honest and consistent in "thought".

I agree that there is little dif in theory between what Edwards suggests and seatbelts, Helmets etc.

leucanthemum b claims to justify the other communist "requirements" then whines because she doesn't want her melons squeezed. Says it's nobody's business and they need to butt out...well, when you have the "nobody" paying for your healthcare, it automatically becomes his business. If the nobody can “save” $100K through early medical care (forcing you to have a mastectomy for example)…who are you to make the rest of us “risk” paying the much more expensive late stage? If it’s you who wants to risk your own money, I agree, it’s none of “our” business. But on the “public’s dime”? That’s a different question all together.

Capt asked: “What's the difference between saying that each citizen must report to his doctor once per year and subject himself to whatever tests the government requires, and demanding that each report to his local police station once per year and submit to a polygraph to determine their obedience to the law?”

Answer: Nothing. But your answer to the shyster “public roads/public schools” is also a pretty lame attempt at justification.

I drive a motorcycle to work 99% of the time (side hack in winter). I always wear a helmet because I want to protect my noggin, not because the shyster and his pals convinced a bunch of useful idiots to pass a law requiring me to do so. I'm opposed to these laws (including seat belts etc) EXACTLY because commie shyters like dave will continue to use their useful idiots to pass more laws to enslave the rest of us...the shyster has already said he supports the VIOLENT overthrow of the U.S. government. In the meantime, he'll do whatever it takes to work for that goal using non-violent, "voluntary" means whenever the opportunity presents itself.

When you “conservatives” open the door for the “public good”….you’re opening the door for all the commie shysters to crawl out from under their rocks and enter your house: Invited guests. CE does a good job by reporting on this issue. Shine a bright light on it for all to see. Less chance of the "leadership" saying: "...I didn't know this would happen.."

This swabbie will automatically become a "criminal" when you guys start passing these laws. I know the shyster wants people like me to be declared "criminals"...but do the rest of you? Your garden variety criminal today isn't too bright. When you guys criminalize me and my pals, you're going to be raising not only the numbers of criminals in the pool...but also the IQ level of the entire pool.

Posted by swabjockey05 | September 4, 2007 7:13 AM

Baydum accidentally made the Captain’s point. People like CE, who call themselves conservatives, are obviously uncaring, irrational and selfish individuals...I'm no doctor, but couldn't these be the initial symptoms of a sociopath?

Doc J. Should have read your comments first. Could it be true that like “great minds”….simple ones also think alike?

Viking. giblets? lol.

Like new "gun laws"...laws such as these will turn a lot of "good men" into "bad men".

Posted by Captain Ed | September 4, 2007 7:34 AM


I am conservative. Fear me. ;-)

Posted by swabjockey05 | September 4, 2007 7:51 AM

Arrrrrrrrrrr. Aye Cap'n...already do.


Posted by MarkW | September 4, 2007 8:00 AM


I agree with your comments regarding govt banning things that it thinks are bad for us.

Would you extend your arguments to cover illegal drugs?

Posted by Bob Mc | September 4, 2007 8:05 AM

George Orwell's 1984?

No,this proposal takes us closer to the society described in "Logans Run".....


Posted by MarkW | September 4, 2007 8:07 AM

In one of Arthur C. Clarke's books (it may have been "Outpost of Jupiter") one of the main characters declares

"The purpose of govt is to protect you from other people. Once govt get's the notion that it needs to protect you from yourself, then it's time to get a new govt."

Posted by dave | September 4, 2007 8:13 AM

Yes, I realize that immunizations can affect other’s health, and is therefore a different case. Seatlbelts, helmets, FDA, still seem the same to me.
I would like to know how you would be able to get a lifesaving operation without cash or insurance.

My first post was spur of the moment. I think I have changed my mind. Mandatory doctors visits does seem problematic in practice, and I realize that this is not the way to go. Suggesting it seems like a response to a desire to enhance public health, and to claim that it is the start of another Pol Pot regime is pure right wing hysteria, however.
Universal health coverage, including free comprehensive screenings, seems sufficient. I would also back this up with a large public awareness campaign. Ads showing testimonials from people who's lives are saved by screenings, giving them decades added on to their lives, contrasted with testimonials from those who are dying for no other reason than to exercise their freedom not to go to a doctor, would probably get voluntary compliance around 90%, which is the level cited in the article I linked to. In the end, the public will just have to absorb the cost of the people who refuse go to the doctor who end up needing expensive treatment for late stage cancers. You can suggest that a national health care system not pay for people who make stupid choices - so you can say that people are free not to wear helmets as long as they pay for their cracked skulls out of their own pocket. I do not agree with this either. Being a good commie, I believe it is the publics collective duty to rescue people from their own bad choices. A public system should still pay to repair the cracked skull. I agree that, in the end, people must still be given the choice to make bad decisions.
I realized this because I have always been in favor of legalizing drugs for similar reasons. Drugs can be used responsibly, and if people use them irresponsibly and hurt themselves, that's their own choice. I then noticed my hypocritical thinking.

Posted by Ross MacLochness | September 4, 2007 8:23 AM

" claim that it is the start of another Pol Pot regime is pure right wing hysteria..."

Is it?

Read on:

Posted by dave | September 4, 2007 9:02 AM

I didn’t realize until now that I became part of the thread.

“The use of seatbealts, airbags, and helmets are requirements for using government-owned roads and schools.”
By government owned, don’t you mean publicly owned, since my taxes helped to pay for the roads?

“You don't have to vaccinate your kids if they never attend public school, and you never have to use your seatbelts if you never drive on public roads.”
Doesn’t it follow directly that if the government provides universal health care, then they should be able to force you to go to a doctor if you use it? I still do not see any difference between mandatory doctors visits in a system of universal health care and seat belt use. If the government establishes a universal health care system, I agree that people should not be forced to go to a doctor, but maybe persuaded through awareness campaigns to do so. To me it must follow that helmet and seatbelt use should be optional. Mandatory seat belt use is the first step to a Pol Pot regime!

“ what's the difference between saying that each citizen must report to his doctor once per year and subject himself to whatever tests the government requires, and demanding that each report to his local police station once per year and submit to a polygraph to determine their obediance to the law?”
Probably not much of one. I changed my mind already.

Posted by Neo | September 4, 2007 9:25 AM

This feels like a "Dukakis in the tank" moment.

This will follow Edwards around forever.

Posted by Neo | September 4, 2007 9:32 AM

Since the MSM didn't report it .. it is left to fester rather than being fully vetted and blown lifeless.

Posted by Bob Mc | September 4, 2007 9:53 AM

Does this also mean that a government-run health care system would have the authority to require an abortion in cases of high-risk pregnancies, against the wishes of the mother? Or, refuse to provide care for the infant after birth because the mother failed to follow the prescribed treatment plan?

Could the government penalize doctors who refuse to perform abortions?

Edwards has not thought his statement through. If the government will not have the authority to mandate services, then what is the purpose of the mandatory check-ups? If one can refuse treatment for a health problem diagnosed during the check-up, what is the purpose of the check-up?


Man reports for annual check-up. Blood test reveals high level cholesterol. Treatment plan requires a change in diet and application of chemical therapy. Cost to diagnose and develop treatment plan: $3,000

Man says "screw you, I like my eggs and bacon".

Government says "Thanks for stopping by. See ya next year".

Savings produced by Edwards plan: -$3,000.

Without authority to enforce treatment, it's a complete waste of money. Unless, of course, those who refuse treatment are required to reimburse the government for it's expenses.

Posted by David M | September 4, 2007 11:32 AM

Trackbacked by The Thunder Run - Web Reconnaissance for 09/04/2007
A short recon of what’s out there that might draw your attention, updated throughout the check back often.

Posted by Ruth | September 4, 2007 12:44 PM

Children who do not attend public schools DO have to be vaccinated by law. My children attended private religious schools. In order for the schools to be accredited, they had to provide proof that the children were vaccinated. I had to submit forms to that effect for all my children. Home schooling may be different. I'm not sure about that. But I think it likely that the parents are required to provide proof of vaccination in order to be able to legally home school.

Posted by docjim505 | September 4, 2007 1:20 PM


As I've gotten older (!), I've become increasingly libertarian on illegal drugs. While I understand and respect the position of people who want them banned, I have reached a position where I feel that they should not be. If somebody is stupid enough to smoke dope, snort coke, shoot up horse, or whatever, it's his business. It only becomes my business when he hurts somebody else.

Make 'em legal, make 'em safer, tax the hell out of 'em.

This speaks to Ray's question about "banning" murder and theft. I am reminded of a line from Dumas' "The Count of Monte Cristo":

"... one escapes the clutch of the human law, which says, `Do not disturb society!'"

One can make an argument either way:

--- How does the murder of some nobody "disturb society"? What is it to me whether somebody in the next state or county or even the next house is murdered or robbed? So long as I personally am not harmed, what care I?

--- EVERYTHING a person does affects society in some way. If somebody else drives drunk, even if he doesn't hit me, he drives up everybody's insurance rates or ties up hospital beds or takes police away from pursuing other types of criminals. Extend the argument: people who have sex outside of marriage are an outright hazard to society as they may spread disease or create lots of little bastards that I'll have to pay for through my taxes. Gotta ban that sort of thing!

Obviously, there is a happy medium somewhere that the majority of us can accept. Motorcycle helmet laws do not the Khmer Rouge make nor do required checkups at the doctor the Soviet Union make. However, we don't have the term "slippery slope" in our language for nothing, and I say that we should review very carefully any proposals that expand government power.

Posted by swabjockey05 | September 4, 2007 1:30 PM


I’ll make it shorter: Absolutely. But when your worthless kid ODs on the street...because you were too stupid/ineffective to "learn them better". All the drug abuser should be "entitled to" is an old DRMO army cot...some soup (protein stock from the deer that are culled from urbanized areas) dished out by the local Catholic church…and if/when instead of recovering from the OD he takes a dirt nap…all society will owe him would be a "free" cremation (unless you, the parent, takes care of the remains on your own dime).

No “free” treatment. No “free” medical for the helmet-less motorcyclist. No “free” medical for the bungee jumper who failed to adequately pre-flight his bungee cord. No “free” medical for dave the shyster commie wannabe lawyer

Posted by swabjockey05 | September 4, 2007 1:48 PM

Does that sound too harsh? Only wish you could look into my eye right this very moment. Try gazing into your computer much concern for being "too harsh" do you see there?

What about the GWOT? Are we or are we not currently in a conflict over freedom and slavery? Shouldn't freedom be our choice? This swabbie isn't risking life and limb for a country that's spiraling down into the abyss of communism. You think I'm alone?

I guess that is...if I'm not the last swabbie to die in the "immoral war"...when more of the weak-kneed Repubs join the cowardly, sniveling Dhimmis only to abandon us (the dead and wounded) to another lost cause...did I mention the fact that they are the very same “leaders” that got us into the “cause” in the first place?

Posted by hap | September 4, 2007 2:49 PM

Your response to Dave in the update to the post is pathetic. Government owned? Where'd they get that money, anyway? Aside from that, who cares? As long as my actions don't deprive another of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness", what difference does it make? You can make an argument for vaccinations, but you'll never make a reasonable argument for helmets or seat belts.

As far as Edwards is concerned, you do realize your poster boy for a few weeks on this site, Mr. Romney, passed a mandatory health insurance law in Massachusetts, don't you? Same difference...

Posted by old white guy | September 4, 2007 3:09 PM

in canada the people with money get to go to the US for treatment when our socialised medical system doesn't work. what the hell will we do if your country falls into the same trap we did?

Posted by Bob Mc | September 4, 2007 3:18 PM

Dave said:

"Being a good commie, I believe it is the publics collective duty to rescue people from their own bad choices. A public system should still pay to repair the cracked skull. I agree that, in the end, people must still be given the choice to make bad decisions."

I agree completely. Ergo, we are saving (saved)the Iraqi people from having elected Hussein, now Al-Qaeda, we need to save the 1 billion Muslims who made a bad decision (being Muslim), we need to save those who choose Pepsi over Coke, etc.

Of course, these are things on my list of "bad choices made by other people".

What's on your list?

Dave, your use of the phrase "bad choices" is certainly subjective. While everyone would agree with the intent of your statement, there are possibly 5-6 billion different opinions as to what constitutes a "bad decision". If the planets' population could just reach an objective agreement on what is "bad" ah....uh....never mind.

Posted by Amy | September 4, 2007 7:35 PM

There is a psychiatric / pharmaceutical plan to "suicide screen" every child in the United States before they graduate from high school.

Evidence exists that shows massive pharmaceutical backing that will result in even more overdrugging of kids with psychiatric drugs .

Can you take a moment to view this very short video? Click here:

And then sign and forward this petition to your associates and everyone you know? It already has over 22,500 signatures

Posted by RW | September 4, 2007 9:50 PM

****You can make an argument for vaccinations, but you'll never make a reasonable argument for helmets or seat belts.*****

Hey, if someone wants to go through a windshield, fine by me.....but, no acceptance - even in a 'public' hospital, when their face is fragmented or their skull is fractured. No safety adherence, no coverage, public or private.

I can go along with that sort of deal. Ride/drive free.

(kids/infants don't follow....they're to be kept safe if you want to travel on public highways.)

Posted by dave | September 5, 2007 7:42 AM

Bob Mc:
When reading, it is a good practice to read in context. Even small children are able to do this quite effectively. It is very clear that when I spoke of "bad decisions", I was referring to decisions relating to personal health care and safety. That I have to explain this to you shows what a complete imbecile you are.

Posted by Bob Mc | September 5, 2007 9:11 AM

dave said:

"It is very clear that when I spoke of "bad decisions", I was referring to decisions relating to personal health care and safety."

Ah...the "out of context" and "you're stupid" arguments combined.

Care to clearly define the boundary of bad decisions between personal health care and safety and non-personal health care and safety decisions?

Do suicide bombers make good or bad decisions? And you don't have to include the victims in your calculus.

Are you claiming to be the deciderer of good/bad decisions?

Posted by swabjockey05 | September 6, 2007 10:19 AM

Bob Mc,

All good commies know that a Tyrant is "necessary". There is nothing that would make the commie shyster happier than to be made the "decider” or “maker of decisions" or “truth minister” etc.

Especially if he didn't have to get his little, shysterly hands dirty.

Post a comment