Do you really believe Edwards is going to force you to get medical care?

[iverglas]

I asked someone this in another thread, and it was suggested I post this as a thread unto itself. I hesitate to insert myself into discussions of US electoral politics, being a foreigner, but I'm a foreigner who cares about people in the US getting health care, and about truth in reporting. (I have an interest in the health insurance industry in the US being brought to heel, since it is the biggest threat to Canada's health care system, in that it is desperate to gain access to the Cdn health insurance market, and this could only be done by creating a two-tier health care system in Canada.)

So here are the questions I think people falling for the media's representation of what Edwards said might think about.



Why on earth would someone who wants to be the president of the USA, which has a constitution that guarantees the right to liberty and privacy and all that stuff, be proposing to make it mandatory that anyone, at least anyone who is not an immediate danger to the public, be required by law to obtain health care that s/he doesn't want?

(Even in the case of serious communicable diseases, governments in liberal democracy-type places will ordinarily be limited to requiring reporting, and isolating infected individuals where absolutely necessary -- Typhoid Mary, who refused to stop working in places where she would likely infect people, for instance -- and will not be able to treat people against their will.)

Why would anyone believe that such a person said such a thing?

Because he said:

http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2007/09/02/ap4075654.html

"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."

? Isn't it really a bit of a stretch to interpret that as advocating forcing people to do things they don't want to do? Doesn't it make a bit more sense as a clumsily worded expression of a belief in how things oughta work if the system he is proposing is to work, and maybe how people shouldn't expect it to work for them if they're not going to do their bit?

Because a journalist (note the absence of quotation marks, and note that only one journalist appears to be reporting this) said:

http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2007/09/02/ap4075654.html

He noted, for example, that women would be required to have regular mammograms in an effort to find and treat "the first trace of problem." Edwards and his wife, Elizabeth, announced earlier this year that her breast cancer had returned and spread.

? Might he have really been talking about requiring that women have access to regular mammograms?


http://www.johnedwards.com/issues/health-care/costs /
Again ... with my emphasis.

A New Era In Chronic And Preventive Care

Chronic diseases account for three-quarters of national health care spending. Helping patients and providers to manage these illnesses and avoid unnecessary hospitalizations can improve health and dramatically reduce health care costs. Additionally, less than 5 percent of total U.S. health care spending goes toward prevention.

As president, Edwards will cut the cost of and improve treatment for chronic conditions by:

* Creating Patient-Centered Medical Homes: Ninety percent of Medicare dollars are spent on people with three or more conditions, who usually see multiple specialists. At the same time, the number of new family practitioners has dropped 50 percent, in part because we don't properly value primary care. Starting with Medicare and other public plans, Edwards will help transform how health care is delivered by changing reimbursement rules to emphasize primary care. Primary care physicians will guide care for patients to make sure they are getting proven treatment from a coordinated team. (Bodenheimer, 2006)

* Revolutionizing Chronic Care Management and Requiring Prevention: Edwards will require Health Care Markets and public plans to pro-actively monitor chronically-ill patients' health to reduce complications and hospitalizations, and he will offer private plans incentives to do the same. Vermont is demonstrating that this kind of new approach to managing chronic care can improve patients' health and save money. He will also require preventive care coverage, with public plans offering preventive care without co-payments, and provide incentives for patients to participate. (Washington Post, 6/3/07)

If it's to be mandatory, why provide incentives to participate??

(Incentives could include things like premium discounts for people who have regular check-ups / participate in other preventive programs. We don't have such incentives in Canada, for example, because the universal system is quite simply universal - you can't be disqualified by, say, a pre-existing condition or non-compliance with medical advice or public policy. Receipt of medical care is guaranteed, coverage is provided through tax revenue or, in some places, nominal premiums that are determined by family size and abilitiy to pay only, and the services provided depend on the professional opinion of the care provider, and nothing and no one else. Public health campaigns, and health care providers themselves, encourage people to use preventive health care services.)

I don't think John Edwards' proposals are anything like what is really needed, but I recognize the probable need to proceed incrementally. The Cdn health care system wasn't built in a day -- it started in one province and spread to others and eventually became mandated nationally; it started nationally with hospital insurance and expanded to cover medical services generally; it started by allowing extra-billing by doctors and now prohibits it; etc.

But what I can't figure out is: why are so many people so eager to protray John Edwards as the next Joe Stalin??

FoxNews I can understand. Democratic Underground?