Mandatory medical treatment even for prophylactic purposes is abhorrent!

Do you think it is abhorrent for your insurer, whether it be the government or a private company, to make full coverage for an ailment contingent on following a preventive care regime for that ailment.
Ex/ If you want full coverage in the possible future event of breast cancer, you must have regular mammograms so that it can be caught early. You can choose not to have regular mammograms, but in that case you are also choosing to pay more in the event that you get breast cancer.
I don't think anyone has seriously suggested that people would be physically forced to submit to care, nor is it at all likely that any consequence other than that which I've laid out will be implemented.

The inevitable mandatory drug regimen is downright Machiavellian!

What are you talking about here?

More the latter than the former.
Mandatory medical treatment even for prophylactic purposes is abhorrent! The inevitable mandatory drug regimen is downright Machiavellian!

"Jumping to conclusions"doesn't qualify as a bonafide exercise program!

2 of the 4 blogs with a reasonable search function linked to in this post also had post supporting the patriot act. Add to this Fox "News" personalities, the WSJ editorial staff, and the bulk of talk radio and I don't think I had to jump very far.
Or did I just wrongly jump to the conclusion that this was the conclusion you accused me of jumping to?

Wouldn't one have to think of himself as dumber than his government in order to support that government running his life? Just asking.

So you believe that universal health care = the government running your life?
or you think that making benefits contingent on meeting requirements = the government running your life?

Grewgills;
"Jumping to conclusions"doesn't qualify as a bonafide exercise program![lol]

Wouldn't one have to think of himself as dumber than his government in order to support that government running his life? Just asking.

1. I think there are enough Americans that think it isn't the government's job to make sure everyone in America has the same health care.

Every recent poll I have seen shows about 2-1 support for universal health care by US citizens.

2. I feel those who advocate UHC and have the ability to introduce it do not feel it strongly enough to get it done.

Can't say for sure but every major Dem supports universal health care and some Repub govs as well.

3. I have never seen UHC, either in practice abroad or introduced here, that works well.

I am living in Western Europe now and am part of a hybrid universal health care system here and it works quite well.

I know this is a limited forum but can't you give me just one practical reason for UHC?

A healthier populace.
Better medical outcomes.
Lower prices.
No one being forced to wait until a medical condition becomes an emergency then seeking treatment in an emergency room as an indigent patient because they could not afford a doctors visit and certainly cannot afford the emergency room costs.

But how does society have a vested interest in people living 30 years past retirement rather than 20?

Society has a vested interest in a healthier population, just as it has a vested interest in a better educated population.

What vested interest does society have in paying for all children to get needed vaccinations rather than their parents paying?

So that ALL children are vaccinated regardless of their parents ability to pay.

BTW, if you use public education as an example of why we need UHC and how government can do a better job than the private sector, I'll vote against it every time.

If private schools operated under the same burdens as public schools, private schools would do no better and in many cases would do worse. (I've worked in both)

Clearly what is far less is "the sum of these problems."

You're right, I did miss or ignore the commas and I now see the proper meaning of your statement. It was the flow of the sentence that made me interpret it the way I did. Thanks

Why do you believe it will never happen in America? Is it because you think the Republicans will be able to successfully filibuster all attempts at universal health care legislation for the duration of the republic?

No, I just think it can't be done.
1. I think there are enough Americans that think it isn't the government's job to make sure everyone in America has the same health care.
2. I feel those who advocate UHC and have the ability to introduce it do not feel it strongly enough to get it done.
3. I have never seen UHC, either in practice abroad or introduced here, that works well.
Therefore, I feel the feeble attempts of UHC advocates will never convince enough of us to make it happen.

You have answered your own question with your public education analogy. The reasons are much the same.

I'm sorry, I still do not see it. I know this is a limited forum but can't you give me just one practical reason for UHC? I can see how having a more educated electorate is better for America and so supposedly society has a vested interest in making education available to all citizens. But how does society have a vested interest in people living 30 years past retirement rather than 20? What vested interest does society have in paying for all children to get needed vaccinations rather than their parents paying?
Contrary to your initial opinion, I am not stupid or unmovable. I just have certain opinions of government's role and need sufficient evidence that changing that opinion is the right thing to do.
BTW, if you use public education as an example of why we need UHC and how government can do a better job than the private sector, I'll vote against it every time.

I'm wondering why we even discuss universal health care. It will never happen in America.

Why do you believe it will never happen in America? Is it because you think the Republicans will be able to successfully filibuster all attempts at universal health care legislation for the duration of the republic?

What are the benefits to our society as a whole. I can understand why they force me to pay for universal education, the higher the average educational level of our populace the better for society as a whole, but where are the correlating reasons for universal health care?

You have answered your own question with your public education analogy. The reasons are much the same.

The actual health plan advocated by Edwards is a hybrid system. This type of system has its problems as any and all possible systems will. The sum of these problems, particularly in regards to costs and average quality of coverage for all citizens, are far less than those of our current system.

Your sentence structure states that the quality of my medical coverage under the Edward's system will be far less than it currently is . I'm not sure I want that. Even if it means others will rise from no coverage to my new mediocre coverage.

I'm wondering why we even discuss universal health care. It will never happen in America. I see it as a way for the left to get uncovered citizens to vote for them. Even though they know they can't deliver. Even Bill Clinton putting his wife in charge of adopting legislation to create universal health care could not get it done. (Darn stingy Republicans)

Tell me the practical reasons for the government to force me to pay my tax dollars to provide others with health care. What are the benefits to our society as a whole. I can understand why they force me to pay for universal education, the higher the average educational level of our populace the better for society as a whole, but where are the correlating reasons for universal health care?

The same can be said about Edward's plan. He will take away control of a person's body so that it will be cheaper to provide health care to the entire public. People will essentially be forced into doing things they otherwise wouldn't do...
Actually it does. It takes away the decision just as with James' abortion example.

No. It will potentially add a cost to deciding not to do something that some people would otherwise not do. If you chose to forgo preventive care, you will pay a higher cost if you are later diagnosed with a disease that the preventive care would have prevented or mitigated. It is not at all likely that care would be entirely withheld, certainly no more likely than your private carrier finding some excuse to deny all or part of your coverage for expensive treatment.

While there is quite a bit that hinges on how much the State takes over, it is quite possible that people wont have any choice in the matter. For example, if Darleen is right then there will be no option other than going to the State sanctioned doctor. Failure to do so will meet with some form of punishment.

And that punishment will almost certainly be higher cost of care for the ailment that you neglected to preventively care for.

Yes criminalizing. I've argued that this is probably going to necessary if you are going to have some sort of State sponsored health care, at least if you are serious about reducing the growth rate of health care expenditures.

No other nation I am aware of has chosen to do this. Do you really think we will be the first?

Or hit you with a penalty fee/fine/imprisonment if you can't pay. Really, what is the difference between these outcomes? None that I can see.

Do you really think women will be sent to prison for failing to get a mammogram? Seriously, you should keep your arguments nearer to reality.

No stormtroopers, but bureaucrats. Bureaucrats who merely tell you to fork over a chunk of change and that if you can't pay they'll start garnishing your wages, forcing you to do community service, etc. Basically taking little bits of your life.

and when your private insurer refuses coverage and you are forced to do the same?

The actual health plan advocated by Edwards is a hybrid system. This type of system has its problems as any and all possible systems will. The sum of these problems, particularly in regards to costs and average quality of coverage for all citizens, are far less than those of our current system.

Why will this happen? There are plenty of countries with dual universal public and private sector healthcare systems, such as Germany and France.

And the U.S. Further, France is a mixed system like ours so such a comparison is not valid. I don't know as much about Germany, but in general you don't want to have a private and public option as private insurance companies will "cream skim" the least sickly leaving the State with the high cost/sickly people.

No, that's ridiculous. Outlawing abortion is in effect violating individual control over your own body.

The same can be said about Edward's plan. He will take away control of a person's body so that it will be cheaper to provide health care to the entire public. People will essentially be forced into doing things they otherwise wouldn't do.

Requiring people to get check ups in order to maintain their health insurance sacrifices exactly no individual freedom. None. What. So. Ever.

Actually it does. It takes away the decision just as with James' abortion example.

It is merely a conditional statement- IF you want the state to pay for your medical care THEN you need to get regular check ups so that issues can be addressed when they are small and much less costly.

While there is quite a bit that hinges on how much the State takes over, it is quite possible that people wont have any choice in the matter. For example, if Darleen is right then there will be no option other than going to the State sanctioned doctor. Failure to do so will meet with some form of punishment.

The reason your analogy was bad is that criminalizing something is very different than simply requiring a given action to maintain a privelege.

Yes criminalizing. I've argued that this is probably going to necessary if you are going to have some sort of State sponsored health care, at least if you are serious about reducing the growth rate of health care expenditures.

maybe not drop it but require you to cover some portion of the costs if you refuse to meet the requirements.

Or hit you with a penalty fee/fine/imprisonment if you can't pay. Really, what is the difference between these outcomes? None that I can see.

There's nothing unlikely about that. It's the people who imagine that we'll have medical stormtroopers rousting people from their homes and handcuffing them when they miss a physical that are delusional.

No stormtroopers, but bureaucrats. Bureaucrats who merely tell you to fork over a chunk of change and that if you can't pay they'll start garnishing your wages, forcing you to do community service, etc. Basically taking little bits of your life.

Why is this such a problem Tlaloc, you should love this kind of thing. It is has been what you've been supporting all along.