Is the one espoused by the Prettiest Presidential Candidate. Here’s the scoop:

Edwards Backs Mandatory Preventive Care

Sheesh, would you get a load of this totalitarian do-gooder? Mandatory preventive care. Let those words sink in…you must go to the doctor, or, or, or what, Pretty One? The health police come a-knockin’ at your door? And do they confiscate the Pringles while they’re at it? Or wait, that wouldn’t happen, because Pringles would probably be outlawed in an Edwards administration. But of course, SUVs wouldn’t, because the Pretty One, while harping against them, drives one himself when he’s going home to his gazillion dollar mansion after his mega-hundred dollar haircut. Two Americas? We know which one this fella lives in…

And catch this red herring; it’d be really funny if not for the fact that he seems to be serious:

The former North Carolina senator said all presidential candidates talking about health care “ought to be asked one question: Does your plan cover every single American?”

“Because if it doesn’t they should be made to explain what child, what woman, what man in America is not worthy of health care,” he said. “Because in my view, everybody is worth health care.”

Yep, you got us, Pretty One: it’s because some people aren’t “worthy” of health care that we don’t want to turn the country over to socialists like you (couldn’t be because we actually love this little thing called “freedom”, or because we actually believe in the Constitution, could it? Nah…).

But he sure is pretty!

24 responses »

  1. Don says:

    I think all presidential candidates talking about health care ought to be asked one question: Were you aware that every single American is already guaranteed health care?

  2. Whatever says:

    Don,

    Surely you understand the horrible lower end of the spectrum of that “guaranteed health care”, don’t you? If not, please go visit my grandmother who right now is still in the hospital where she lies dying in her bed with sheets with her own blood on them that don’t get changed until my mom (her daughter) demands it for the upteenth time after two days of it and where a doctor only sees her once in the first 24 hours after she was admitted to the ICU. Fortunately my mom has time to spend there with her because even though she has lung cancer herself, her insurance won’t let her get the necessary tests to see how to treat it. There should be a better plan and whether any of these candidates has it or not, I’m encouraged they are trying.

    As for being “Whatever”, I’ve read this site for a while now and I’ve seen the way people with the temerity to dare disagree with inner circle of the 400 club (Don, Warren, Hefe) and Byron get treated in comments here and I sure as heck don’t want any of you to possibly know who I am for real.

  3. Byron says:

    What,

    It’s hard not to feel sorry for your grandmother, and what she’s going through certainly (appropriately) colors your thinking. Nobody should be subjected to that, that’s for sure. That said, I have little confidence that turning our health care system over to the government would change things for the better; it’s hard for me to see any instance where this is the case, whether it’s health care or what have you.

    Now, as to your second comment, I’m going to have to ask you to provide chapter and verse where people who disagree are treated poorly. True, I can only speak for myself on this one; I’ll let other members of the 400 club (clever name!) speak for themselves. But to make that blanket statement, you’ll have to provide evidence. One of the hallmarks of this site is that I’m going to try to treat every person with dignity. I may disagree very strongly with you, and I don’t hesitate doing so, and I may be firm, but I try to always be respectful. One of our semi-regular posters here, for instance, is Mel, with whom I disagree vehemently on one fundamental issue in particular (hi, Mel!). But I consider her a friend (whom I’ve never met). I had a back-and-forth a couple months ago with an atheist who was at points pretty snitty with me; I did not respond in kind, though I did press him heavily on his points. So if you’re going to toss out the accusation, you need to supply the proof. Thanks.

  4. Whatever says:

    Thank you for your concern for my grandmother. Perhaps little would change with health care if it was all government run. I’ve never been a proponent of change just for change’s sake. But I do think change is needed in the world of health care and I do think it is important enough that everyone should have it. If there is good reasoning against that, I still haven’t seen it.

    AS for the second point, with all due respect there is no way in hell I’m walking into that anymore than I already have. If you really felt you had treated those people with the disrespect and lack of dignity that I feel you have, then I believe you would have reconciled and fixed those situations already. Going back and digging up all that crap to get into with you wouldn’t change your mind about how you handled it, wouldn’t change my mind about how you handled it, and would almost certainly put a massive target on me from you and the 400 club. It’s taken me several months to feel comfortable commenting in here at all – I have no desire to walk into the pit of vipers you’re suggesting and slip back into silence again (where you could then all write me off completely as a ‘troll’). Thanks, but no thanks.

  5. Don says:

    Whatever,

    Temerity is one thing. I would say that there are several regular posters including the so called inner circle who fall into that category. If you’ve been reading this blog long enough you’ll know that Byron and I have also had quite a number of especially spirited debates with one another. In fact, some have gotten down right heated. However, if I or anyone else who frequents this blog have been anything less then respectful in our discourse, I for one would appreciate it if you would point it out to me. While I readily admit to having a frequent tendency toward sarcasm, I have always tried to keep all serious discussions centered on issues and not ad hominem character assassinations, as is the case with some who do not have anything reasoned to bring to a discussion. If I have failed in this I would ask you to cite the instance.

    Now as for health care, let me first express my deepest sympathy over your grandmother’s illness. I can certainly understand how this would be a hot-topic issue for you. I’m sure if I were in your shoes it would be for me as well. But before we begin overhauling America’s healthcare system surely there are some things that I hope you understand as well.

    First of all, even with all of its obvious faults and shortcomings, American healthcare is still the very best in the entire world. Where does the world come when they want to get treated for serious ailments and illness? They come to America. Canadians, Mexicans, hey I even know of a Russian family that brought their daughter to America to have orthopedic surgery done to remove a tumor embedded in her arm. I know you believe that your grandmother’s situation is unconscionable. Believe me I do understand. But I can guarantee you this. There are horror stories that are even ten times worse in countries where healthcare is managed by the government. Ever try getting treated in a military hospital? The point is this. Government bureaucracy has never been able to provide better, more efficient services then the private sector. Those are the facts and the facts are without dispute.

    Second, I hope you also understand that this discussion isn’t really about healthcare. It’s about presidential politics. It’s about power. Politicians in this country love to create a crisis out of everything under the sun in order to be able to ride in on their white horses and provide a government run solution that will solve all of life’s problems. Unfortunately, with that solution comes more government control that necessitates more government funding that requires greater taxes, and ultimately results in less freedom and more bureaucracy. Make no mistake, this debate isn’t about solutions; it’s about power.

    Look, I don’t have all the answers. I readily admit that something ought to be done to help people like your grandmother. On that much we can all agree. And I’m not sure I’m smart enough to figure out what that solution ought to be. But IMHO increasing the federal government is simply not the answer. Best wishes to your grandmother and to your mother.

  6. Whatever says:

    Thanks Don – I appreciate the warm sentiments toward my mother and grandmother. Let me make sure I am clear on this – I had all these thoughts and beliefs on the state of health care in America well before either of them ever got sick. So while it may be more on the forefront of my mind now than it was at other times, that’s not the motivation for me.

    While you may believe those are the facts and they are not in dispute, you are not correct in that assessment. America does spend the most on health care in total, but no study in the past ten years that I’ve ever seen showed us ever at the top of spending per person. And I’ve seen us all over the map on the studies about this – from around 6-8 to as low as #37. We have some great technology and research and treatment options and there are people from around the globe who will come here for that, but there are also people from America travelling around the world to get better treatment then what they can get here. And there are still 50 million Americans with no health insurance at all and their horror stories are all pretty awful. Whether they are more or less awful than someone else’s horror story certainly doesn’t motivate me at all to think nothing should be done.

    And I understand that this isn’t ALL about health care. Of course it’s about political power and about running for president and I agree there is nothing like a crisis to help get you elected. Fortunately there is no incumbent running this time who can just go and invent a ‘war’ somewhere out of nothing for a election-worthy crisis. But health care is a problem in this country and should be fixed (or at least attempted to be fixed).

    And here is what this ultimately comes down to. With all due respect to influence you all here may have, looking at the debacle of eight years of W and the underwhelming mess of the Thompson/Rudy/Mitt/McCain race, I can’t see any situation where a Democrat isn’t in the White House in 2008 (unless you have a photo of HRC, Edwards, and Obama in a threesome). And all of them are talking about health care, so figuring out which plan actually is the best one seems like something to take seriously and not casually dismiss because you don’t like the Democrats in general.

  7. Don says:

    First, let’s be clear. I never said lets do nothing. What I have been saying all along is that government managed health care is a huge mistake. It doesn’t work. It has failed miserably every time it’s been tried.

    Second, if you’re going to accuse anyone of inventing a war, you’d better go ahead and indite Hilary Clinton, John Kerry, John Edwards and many other leading Democrats who all saw the same intelligence as the Busch administration and all reached the same conclusion at the time. All are on record openly affirming the need to go to war and all cast votes in support. Right or wrong it’s high time the Democratic party assumes their fair share of the responsablilty for the decision to go to war.

    Finally, I don’t dispute that there’s more than a fair chance that a Democrat will assume presidential office in 2008. I also agree that the Republican prospects are extremely underwhelming. In fact it may surprise you to learn that I very likely won’t be voting Republican this term. But that doesn’t mean I’m willing to settle for any of the Democratic health care plans, and it has nothing at all to do with whatever disdain you may think I have for Democrats. It has everything to do with the issues. I happen to believe that government run health care is bad for America, period.

  8. Jack Brooks says:

    How do you get good care available to the most people at the cheapest prices in a timely manner? Would that happen better under a single-payer system (socialized health care) or a multi-payer system (free-market system)? I don’t think that health care is any different from any other service industry; and that the free market system always works better over the long haul. My wife is telling me as I type this that you should hear the horror stories of Medicaid. It took one family she knows eight months to get a particular machine without which their two children would die.

  9. Byron says:

    What,

    I’m going to leave the healthcare discussion for Don, you, and Jack to carry on; rather, I’m going to continue to press you to back up the very fuzzy statements you made. You wrote,

    If you really felt you had treated those people with the disrespect and lack of dignity that I feel you have, then I believe you would have reconciled and fixed those situations already. Going back and digging up all that crap to get into with you wouldn’t change your mind about how you handled it, wouldn’t change my mind about how you handled it, and would almost certainly put a massive target on me from you and the 400 club. It’s taken me several months to feel comfortable commenting in here at all – I have no desire to walk into the pit of vipers you’re suggesting and slip back into silence again (where you could then all write me off completely as a ‘troll’).

    Certainly, you’re correct; if I felt I had treated people with “disrespect” and a “lack of dignity”, then you’re dead right: I would have “reconciled” and “fixed those situations”—and thus, you’re according me respect by recognizing that I sincerely would do what is right—at least I assume that’s what you’re saying, and thus thanks. However, you do me no favors whatever by vaguely referring to “those situations”, “all that crap”, “it”, “it” again, etc. I honestly don’t have the slightest idea what situations you’re talking about, who it is you think I’ve disrespected, etc. As Don suggested, I’ve had bold opinions, stated them forcefully at times, employed some sarcasm, to be sure, questioned people on what I consider to be the weakness of their arguments, and on occasion, referred (ALWAYS anonymously) to people’s poor arguments in other posts.

    No, I don’t want you to “slip back into silence” whatsoever; I enjoy very much a nice tete-a-tete (look it up, Don) with folks who have a different perspective, and I very much appreciate it when the tone is respectful, because that is always, always, always my intent: to have a respectful, if occasionally “heated”, discussion.

    But it doesn’t help at all to throw out an accusation, and then in the face of an honest “show me what you’re talking about”, to retreat to the vague words you’ve chosen. I cannot learn from your perspective, or change my ways if they need changing, if you aren’t willing to cite some evidence for the claim you make. If you mean your words to be helpful, I assure you that they are not, absent more specifics. If you mean them simply as an ad hominem attack—and from your reasoned responses otherwise, it doesn’t appear that this is the case—then you’ve succeeded absent giving me some idea of what “it”, “it”, “those situations”, and “all that crap” refer to.

    By the way, I only label “trolls” folks who “swoop in”, make one “flaming” comment, and then leave, never to return or discuss the issue, never to follow up with reasoned argument, never to respond to my attempt at conversation. By definition, you cannot be a troll. My post on that subject of a few weeks back makes that perfectly clear, I think.

  10. Jack Brooks says:

    What: Public accusations require at least some public proof. Complaining that others will be mean on you because they’ve treated other people so badly requires you to prove it. sayi9nbg that could just be a manipulative way of getting other people not to disagree with you.

    Guys being smart-alecks at each other, making fun, and poking each other in the ribs, isn’t wrong, either. This is a very guy-dominated blog, for the most part, and that’s what a lot of guys do.

    If Byron stood back and let some loud bully trash people — a situation that was going on for a long time at a di8fferent forum I visit — that would be a worthy complaint, too. But I haven’t noticed Byron do that, either.

    This is a mild blog, compared to many other Christian blogs, let alone other types. I responded more sharply to a sarcastic commenter who ordered me to “grow a brain” (because I believed in a God) than anything I’ve seen Byron do. You ought to go back and read an old thread about Xenos Christian Fellowship that Byron finally capped. It went on forever, and got pretty hot. But even there I didn’t see Byron manhandle anyone.

    Cf. my blog for the latest post, re. socialized medicine.

  11. Whatever says:

    1) Just because an effort has not worked well enough in the past doesn’t mean it cannot work in the future. And as for health care it sure doesn’t change the fundamentals that something does need to be done and that far too many people have no health coverage in this country.

    2) Don you’re seriously in error about the ‘war’. It was invented by Bush & Co.. The information they had was not the same as what the congress got. Those in congress who voted to support the attack do hold some responsibility (especially to the degree that they have continued to support it). But pretending in any way that the Democrats have a “fair share” of responsibility for the debacle in Iraq is ludicrous.

    3) I’m all for discussion about other health care options than what Clinton or Edwards or anyone has suggested. But to a certain degree, it also makes sense to talk about which of their plans is the best, too – since that may very well be what we’re voting about in 14 months.

    4) Sorry to all of you who don’t like my position but I thought long and hard about it before I decided to ever start commenting at all and there is no way I’m letting any of you push or coerce or guilt or anything me into talking about that any more than I have. I will not get into that and that’s the final word about it for me.

  12. Jack Brooks says:

    Then I’ll assume your complaint is untrue.

  13. Byron says:

    What,

    Again, I’ll confine my remarks only to the allegations you made that people aren’t dealt with respectfully here, which I take to be the point of point 4. I don’t care to push or coerce or guilt you, but when you throw out an unsubstantiated allegation, simple fairness demands that you back it up. It is patently unfair of you to make allegations of me/this blog and then fail to offer any corroborating evidence. If you’d say, “you know, since I am not willing to offer evidence for my claims, I will retract them”, then I can respect that—even if you choose to continue to hold to those opinions privately. But what you’ve done at this point is to say, effectively, “you’re guilty”, and then to offer exactly nothing to back up that claim. The onus is on you, because I’m willing to answer to any/all challenges you’d toss my way, but until you do, or until you retract the unsubstantiated assertions, it is your credibility, and not mine/this blog’s, that will suffer in the minds of its readers.

    Substantiate or retract; either one would be fine and fair. To do neither is to be guilty of dealing unfairly—dare I say “disrespectfully”?—with me.

  14. Whatever says:

    I can certainly understand and respect your perspective on this. I won’t retract it because to do so would be, in my mind (and yours as well, whether you would admit it or not), saying it wasn’t true in the first place and I don’t believe that. I won’t get into it either because I have no interest in opening myself up to being attacked. I would hope that such a position could be respected even if not agreed with – as I am trying to respect your position even though I don’t agree with it. There was no real option for me here anyways. I had no intention of even bringing it up, but I was called out for not using my name (I believe it was in the Edwards string, like comment #5), so I tried to explain why. Even if I did get into all the unpleasant details, you (collective) weren’t going to see them as wrong – you didn’t in the first place. So we weren’t going to agree on this no matter what – it was just about whether we were going disagree quietly or disagree with you (collective) kicking me along the way. Where my credibility stands in the minds of the readers here won’t keep me up at night – don’t worry.

  15. Byron says:

    That would be the MoveOn string, comment #5, and this is how I “called you out”:

    1. Why do folks who disagree often feel they must use euphemisms like “Whatever” instead of their names (my name is Byron, by the way).

    Well…I still wonder why! But at any rate, as you’d say, “whatever”. I do certainly hope that insomnia doesn’t attend anything you do vis a vis this blog… 🙂

    That said, I’m not impressed with your explanation; I consider it a matter of integrity to back up one’s words (or to at least make the attempt). To retract wouldn’t necessarily entail changing your mind, but rather the simple recognition that integrity should prevent us from casting aspersions on an individual without at the very least providing the “support material” for why those aspersions were cast. When I take on a public figure, I attempt to provide some rationale for my disapproval; hence the fact that in my recent post on Joel Osteen, I didn’t just say, “Joel Osteen is a _______”, but rather that I find him to be dangerous BECAUSE __________. I find Mrs. Bill’s health care proposal terrible BECAUSE it would increase the reach of the federal government, not because she’s a __________. I use a little humor here and a touch of satire there, but if the Prettiest Candidate had good proposals to make (IMHO), I’d support him, irrespective of how much he spends on his haircuts (though I might jab him a little on that). But the point is I try, instead of gratuitously bashing people (public figgers and posters alike) to provide reasons for my thoughts. That is the standard of ordinary discourse. It’s a standard that you’ve chosen not to meet, unfortunately.

    Thus, though I do hope that you will not lose sleep over it, it would seem to me that the normal reader would call into question the credibility of a person who would do such. I certainly do…though I hope you don’t take that as some kind of “bashing”; it’s just the way the animal works.

    But unless you have anything more to say on the subject, I’m content to leave it as it stands and allow any who read to draw their own conclusions.

  16. Graham says:

    Can I throw in something on Government-funded healthcare?

    I remember whenever there was an election, one of Labour’s main themes was that they had created Britain’s National Health Service, and that we didn’t want to go back to the pre-NHS system.

    But, I am reading (again) “The Welfare State We’re In” and have gone back over the chapter on the NHS, and then realise that the pre-NHS system wasn’t this harsh, uncaring system that Labour had to save us from. Indeed- and this came as a real surprise to me- Nye Bevan, the founder of the NHS, could find no pragmatic objection to the system; he couldn’t criticise the level of care etc., and his objection to the system was on the political level, namely that the health system was not run by the Government.

    And I was surprised to find that the pre-NHS system wasn’t some sort of Dickensian nightmare. Hospitals were run by charitable foundations, and yes, most people contributed something towards treatment, but as charities, the poor could receive free health care. And many people contributed to friendly societies etc, creating a type of health insurance working at a local level.

    The thing that the NHS came across very quickly, in less than 5 years, is that a state-run, taxpayer-funded health system where all treatment is “free” becomes a financial black hole and becomes untenable. Bevan (along with future Prime Minister Harold Wilson) did resign from the Cabinet over the simple fact that the Cabinet decided that people would need to pay for eye tests.

    But still the principle seems to be accepted by many people that throwing more money at the NHS is a very good thing. However, once a health system is seen as “free” it gets abused.

    This week the Liberal Democrats have their conference, and are suddenly making the transition from the “weird beards and sandals” group to a serious political party willing to become the junior partners in a future government. And one big thing they have raised has been this “free” NHS and how easily it gets abused. And so, they have come up with a simple idea- that people who go out and get drunk and then end up in hospital as a result, should pay for their treatment. Simple, but a realisation that an NHS system does nothing to encourage people to take responsibility for their health.

    And the other shocking thing is that it’s the NHS that has the worst survival rates for many forms of cancer, compared to the rest of the Western world.

  17. Whatever says:

    Yeah Byron, you really strike me as someone who would be having a rational discussion if I brought out the specifics of where I felt you didn’t treat someone well in here. You’re practically drooling at the opportunity to launch at me about this. It’s a pretty picture to paint someone into the only two options being having no credibility or to willing walk into an ambush. Fortunately there are actually other options whether you or anyone else here wants to acknowledge them anyways. Feeling better about my decision all the time.

  18. Byron says:

    Drooling? I commend your active imagination. I’m just trolling for a rational response whereby I can either acknowledge the error of my ways—which I’ve certainly done on occasion, including once this week already (behind the scenes, but I can happily provide a witness, a NKZ reader who’ll readily vouch for this; I’m more than happy to offer proof of my statements)—or be vindicated. At this point, the deafening silence would seem to be vindication aplenty, but you’ll only take that for, what, arrogance? A trap? Irrationality? Something else?

    Ambush? Cite chapter and verse anywhere in this blog where I’ve ever ambushed anyone. Once. Oh, wait…you don’t need to prove it, or even to make the attempt, but only merely state it, to make it true. Unless I’m missing something, that’s the strategy you believe to be effective.

    So to sum up, let me get this straight: allow your allegation to stand, and by my silence give tacit approval to your allegations—even though I’m beyond clueless as to what you’re referring to. Or, ask for an explanation (an example which should be easy to give if it’s so obvious that I disrespect people), and I’m setting up an ambush for you. I think that the phrase is, “damned if you do; damned if you don’t.”

    I see how it works. Unbelievable.

  19. Byron says:

    And no, Graham, you cannot throw in something on government-funded health care. Can’t you see that we’re having a rational debate here on substantive issues? What do you think this blog post is about, anyway???

  20. Byron says:

    Boy, oh boy, Graham, export some of that good stuff over here, baby; that’s just what we need!

  21. Jack Brooks says:

    If you make a public accusation, Whatever, then you back it up. That’s why I erased a recent blog post complaining about Hilary Clinton’s health-care proposal. I’d only read snippets of it, and when I re-read my own post I decided it was too knee-jerk and I deleted it.

    You don’t throw the gauntlet down, make excuses when the other guy challenges it, insult him by calling him a drooler (which is a display of hypocrisy), and then complain about how other people are being mean to you by demanding your back up your words.

    With proof, dude. Prove it.

  22. Whatever says:

    I clearly see the error of my ways. It was a much better decision to remain in silence around here. I’ve been totally up front and clear about my motivation from the beginning – I didn’t like how I saw people treated some times in here and therefore chose to keep anonymous. I had no interest in even bringing that up, but got questioned on my anonymity. I still had no interest in getting into the unpleasant details because of the obvious target and attention it would bring upon me. And none of that has been respected in the least. If you want “damned if you do, damned if you don’t” take three seconds and try to look at this from my side. I never wanted or felt the need to prove anything and I certainly never threw any gauntlets down. Yet the only constant is this insistence that I lay myself out to be attacked over by you. And when I don’t, I get attacked at for not doing that. Shocking that this site is almost entirely made up of people agreeing with each other and patting each other on the back. Enjoy your clubhouse.

  23. Byron says:

    Thanks, we will. Blessings on you, MH.

  24. Graham says:

    Sorry, I didn’t realise I was out of line.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s