Edwards and others claim that all this forced preventive care to help people live longer is going to save money. He needs to explain how. I practice a lot of prevention myself but am not under any illusions that it is saving me money.
Ultimately, everyone develops a fatal illness. Although there are exceptions, the lion’s share of what people cost the system is incurred in the final years of life. So the longer one takes to get there, the more years one has to contribute to what is often a very large tab at the end. This is the basis for an argument smokers make against all the anti-smoking rhetoric; they point out that a good number of them die prematurely, never collecting their Social Security/Medicare benefits. Therefore, they say, the govt should be grateful to them for giving more than they take and get off their case.
I’m sure Edwards can find a lawsuit in here somewhere.
Does anyone ever notice that Liberals always manage to create GUARANTEED INCOME for some people?
The irony is it’s always a guarantee for the “industry” that Libs naturally despise.
They despise “doctors”. They despise “big business”. They despise anything that provides some kind of service.
Yet they turn around and create guaranteed business for the very things they hate.
How much have they enriched Graco and evenFlo with all the stupid baby and child requirements for cars and so on?
Yet they’re also “EEEEVVVIL Big Companies”.
Which is it for the Libs?
We can see they’re very big on welfare, even for whole industries.