American Republic Online

Presidential candidate John Edwards has a plan to “help” people get preventative care: force them to go to the doctor.

“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.”

It would seem that Edwards knows best when it comes to your health. You would get no say in the matter. This is worse than Frist’s long distance diagnosis of Schiavo.

The key phrase in Edwards’ comment is “you can’t choose,” and it is quite revealing. Under Edwards’ plan, you would have no choice, and would be at the mercy of the federal government. If I wanted to smoke and drink myself into oblivion, the government would ride to my rescue and take me to the doctor, spending gobs of money on something I never asked for in the first place. And that’s not even the scariest part. You see, I have almost no doubt that those who speak of universal health care (like Edwards) are sincere in their quest to help people. That is, they think that knocking on someone’s door and telling them they need to go to the doctor is “in their best interest.” C.S. Lewis shows us the danger in this:

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.

Further, this does answer a question I’ve had regarding the talk about “universal health care.” With all the talk of millions of people without health insurance, has anyone considered that there might be those that have chosen to not get it? Think about a recent college graduate who is in decent health and is prepared to pay the $100-200 to go to the doctor if they happen to get sick in order to save the $2,000-3,000 they would pay for insurance coverage. Let’s give the Left the benefit of the doubt and say that there are only a couple million of these individuals. What would happen to them if so-called universal coverage is adopted? Would they have the option to opt-out? No chance. Do those who don’t want to rely on Social Security for their retirement get to opt-out?  Well, if they did get to opt-out of the health coverage, would it still be universal? Edwards’ own philosophy is revealed in his statement, and reinforced by a further comment he made:

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?”.

Would it be fair to those who “have to have” the government coverage if others could choose better coverage? The debate is the same for all issue that they government wants to be a part of that it really has no business in. Retirement. Housing. Education: if I want to send my kids to a better school, do I get the option to stop paying for the local government schools?

Am I the only person that doesn’t want to be forced into government-run health care?