John Edward’s Health Plan Is Sick
Responsibility, politics, Government
Presidential hopeful John Edwards has made a new proclamation concerning his health care plan, and it is now obvious that he is in bed , snuggled under the covers and spooning tenderly with the medical insurance industry. Yes, the man who made a huge fortune by suing doctors (thus justifying the insurance industries outrageous premiums and stupefying malpractice insurance rates), is requiring two things: health insurance for every American - a position the politician who couldn’t even finish one term in the Senate has already stated - AND mandatory doctor visits (his plan to give free medical care to illegal immigrants is sure to be forthcoming).
The total cost for this grand idea? Upwards of $120 billion a year (not including the illegal immigrants free coverage). Chump change I suppose for a preening prima donna addicted to $400 haircuts.
Now, while the thought of everybody having access to reduced cost medical care is pleasing to all of us working class Joes and Janes, the reality of such a system would be quite the opposite. To cover the huge influx of doctors’ visits (not to mention the increased staff and man-hours incurred by the doctors’ offices, plus the impact such a flood of appointments would have on the needs of those who are truly sick or have an emergency) would require a monumental rise in premiums and co-payments.
Furthermore, the insurance industry already asserts too much control over medical decisions. You wouldn’t have to poll more than ten people to find seven who have a story about some non-doctor pencil pusher “advising” their health care provider away from a surer but more costly course of action (”advising” meaning, do the cheaper thing or we won’t pay you the already minuscule percentage of the cost for your services that we do when you do follow our orders). One of my favorite insurance chimes is the “change his medicine to one on our discount list” as if hamburger was the same thing as steak when it comes to controlling blood pressure or bipolar disorder or cancer.
No, I don’t relish the idea of pouring more profits into the pockets of business people who wouldn’t know the cold end of a stethoscope even if you shoved it up their spreadsheet.
But it’s part 2 of Edward’s plan that I find downright spin-chilling. Since when has American been the land of mandatory anything when it comes to intimate personal decisions? Isn’t the war-cry of the Liberals “my body, my choice?”
You know, I actually have a lot more to say on this subject - for instance how Edward’s $120 billion “let me tell you what to do with your body” plan is just another way for the government to reach into our pockets and redistribute our hard-earned money (sort of like a Communist state does) - but I think I’ll just let that one statement just sink in:
My body, My Choice…
* * * * *
Get BentSense delivered to your in-box:
* * * * *
TheWriteJerry @ September 3, 2007
I agree. The plan, as you represent it, sounds terrible. I would rather have nationalize healthcare than that mess.
You are right, it sounds a lot like the communist system. That is true “socialized medicine”. From what I understand, that was the idea in the U.S.S.R. Everyone was required to get a yearly physical to ensure that they were physically able to do their jobs. This was sold as a good idea, and “for their own good”. In practice, the doctors were corrupt as the government, and in order to keep your job you would have to bribe the doctor to give you a clean bill of health. If you didn’t cough up the rubles, the doctor would make up a disease for you.
It is refreshing to see a man adopt the pro-choice war cry.. “Get your laws off my body!!”
Actually, to be clear, Melissa…
I am decidedly pro-life. I just find John Edwards to be such a hypocrite that I love the irony of using one of his war cries against him.
That being said, yes, Edward’s mandatory visits system has insurance fraud written all over it just as the Soviet bribe system did. Great observation
John Edwards is a little too liberal for my tastes.
Just to play devil’s advocate here (and I in NO WAY want to start any sort of abortion debate) there used to be an idea in the old USA that in order to defend your rights, you also had to defend the other side of them. For example, free speech, you had to defend someones right to express unpopular, questionable views even when you disagreed, to protect yourself for the time that your views were looked at as unpopular, questionable.
Perhaps things like this reinforce the idea that the government shouldn’t legislate what people do their bodies. I mean this across the board. There have been so many attempts at doing just that, that this idea shouldn’t surprise you. The government has gotten away with things like prohibiting assisted suicide, trying to legislate when to pull the plug and forcing people to receive medical treatment.All in the name of “for your own good”. Perhaps, across the board, we have to say that our right to do what we want to our bodies is sacred. Even when we may disagree or think that some of those choices are not ones we would ever make.
(Just to set the record straight for me- I am anti-abortion as well. But pro-choice. I just think that the way to decrease the problem is not through legislation, making something illegal doesn’t make it go away.)
Hmm . . . is that where this topic ends?