Jail time for skipping a physical?

malclave

King
Joined
Dec 30, 2005
Messages
788
Or would merely a fine be sufficient for first-time offenders? And would there be legal repercussions for not fasting before your cholesterol test?
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."
(article continues at http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070903/ap_on_el_pr/edwards)

I understand the debate on national health care... but this plan seems excessive to me.
 
Where does it say anything about jail time? That's a compeltely ridiculous idea that has nothing to with nationalized healthcare.

If this thread is intended as some kind of counter-argument against natl. HC then all I can say is: Surreal.
 
Jail time for skipping a physical makes sense to me. If your health becomes a responsibility to the public it is better to diagnose and prevent problems instead of treating them after they occur.
 
Jail time for skipping a physical makes sense to me. If your health becomes a responsibility to the public it is better to diagnose and prevent problems before they occur.

So going to jail is going to better serve the public?

Take a tax paying citizen out of the workforce and put them in a prison to be supported by the taxpayer. :lol:
 
So going to jail is going to better serve the public?

Take a tax paying citizen out of the workforce and put them in a prison to be supported by the taxpayer. :lol:

This is the logic of drug laws.
 
Well, I thought the comment about jail time was easily identified as hyperbole, and I apologize if it was not.

I don't see, though, how the government would be able to mandate people go to see a physician for medical care without some sort of legal consequence... Sen. Edwards did state that people would not have the choice to not go.

I'm not discussing the larger debate over nationalized health care here, just the plan Sen. Edwards discussed that was covered by the article linked.
 
Pointless argument. A much wiser plan would be merely to state that without making regular physicals, you stop being eligible for public health care. I doubt politicians fail to see that.

Quite simply, associating jail time with that feels like fearmongering. Amen, Big Brother.

Regards :).
 
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought only Bush was the one trying to restrict freedoms and consolidate presidential power...

Edwards has resorted to this because he knows deep down that his plan sucks, and this is the very reason so many Americans oppose national healthcare.
 
Well, I thought the comment about jail time was easily identified as hyperbole, and I apologize if it was not.

I don't see, though, how the government would be able to mandate people go to see a physician for medical care without some sort of legal consequence... Sen. Edwards did state that people would not have the choice to not go.

I'm not discussing the larger debate over nationalized health care here, just the plan Sen. Edwards discussed that was covered by the article linked.

Well, in politics, one is never careful enough. Nonetheless, when you said "this plan sounds excessive", you did made it sound you were criticizing an actual plan.
 
If something is required or mandatory then its usually always backed up by a penalty or legal action.

He may not have mentioned jail time or fine but he definitely implied it with his word usage.
 
It does? :confused: Wow. All I can say is: Wow.

What is so strange about it? It is obvious that many people believe that every person's health is a public responsibility. If this is so, not taking care of your health must have consequences. It could cost tax payers hundreds of thousands of dollars if the state has to cure you of e.g. cancer that should have been diagnosed before it ever became a major problem.
 
It sounds like BS, moreover he is only playing politics. The government can't even enforce the border laws, how the heck are they going to require me to get a physical, oh and if i don't get a physical they might deny me treatment in the future. also would this physical be used against me, if i don't meet certain standards then would i then be uneligable for free healthcare.
 
The plan doesn't seem nearly as excesive than the thread title. Forcing someone to get a check-up is probably not realistic, but strongly encouraging preventive care is probably better in the long run than the insurance model that typically gives disincentive for preventive care.
 
Well, in politics, one is never careful enough. Nonetheless, when you said "this plan sounds excessive", you did made it sound you were criticizing an actual plan.
Yes... the specific proposal by Sen. Edwards.
 
I oppose socialized medicare but if are going to implement it mandatory semiannual checkups are the way to go. If you mis 3 in any 3 year period you get the boot and fined to recoup costs.
 
IMO if you create a socialized medical program it has to be unconditional. You cant expect someone to pay into the program and then not recieve healthcare when they need it.
 
Pointless argument. A much wiser plan would be merely to state that without making regular physicals, you stop being eligible for public health care. I doubt politicians fail to see that.

Quite simply, associating jail time with that feels like fearmongering. Amen, Big Brother.

Regards :).

I would be all for national health care in a second if the idea was something like this.

If something is required or mandatory then its usually always backed up by a penalty or legal action.

He may not have mentioned jail time or fine but he definitely implied it with his word usage.
Not at all. I took it the same way Fred did.
 
Top Bottom