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?

[Ninga]

1. Taking comments out of context is a great American sport....sport. Just wait

and you will be reading the posts that are full of buts........

[ret5hd]

2. The FUD-mongers here were out in full-force on this one...

Their biggest fear was the image of a health-gestapo kicking their door down in the middle of the night, dragging them kicking and screaming to their physicians office where s/he (all while cackling like Dr. Frankenstein) straps the wife to a gurney and forces pap-smears and mammograms on her, stands the husband on a treadmill, using a braided whip to force him to a faster and faster pace, and gives the poor children hearing and vision tests.

It was a chilling vision, i'm here to tell ya!

[The Vinyl Ripper]

3. Edwards has no problem with the War On Drugs

So it stands to reason that Gestapo tactics are of no concern to him.

It's only a minor step from mandatory urine tests to mandatory checkups.

[LSK]

36. YES HE DOES

Maybe you should watch more CSPAN. He was asked about marijuana laws at a town meeting and he said he would look into it and hes open to legalizing it in medical cases.

GOD IM SO SICK OF THE LYING HERE!!! FUCK!!!!

[Kajsa]

46. You and me both, LSK.

Doesn't it make you wonder who exactly
are these people making up this shit?

Post counts can't even tell the story, many times.
Some trolls are in it for the long haul.

[Gormy Cuss]

4. I think Edwards is too astute of a politician to think that 'mandatory check-ups' would fly.

His health plan has a fundamental flaw in that it relies on insurance company participation and for that reason I don't support it, but I can't believe that Edwards would suggest that every covered person would be required to have an annual exam in order to participate. I would think that Edwards is instead suggesting that the participating plans would be required to cover annual exams and associated screening tests.

[iverglas]

6. duh,, eh?

I can't believe that Edwards would suggest that every covered person would be required to have an annual exam in order to participate.

But you know it's worse than that. He's going to make you participate, ergo he's going to make you have an annual exam, since there'll be no "in order to particiapte" about it. I hate pictograms, but one may be needed here. :sarcasm:

I wonder whether it isn't the forces rallying against that "make you participate" part who are the most, er, concerned about being made to get an annual exam.

And of course, anyone who supports Thing X must necessarily support Thing Y, even where Thing Y is an absurdity, so everybody must all believe every imaginable absurdly horrible thing about anyone who suppots Thing X.

I understand the frustration at having to choose among a field of candidates who are all problematic. Even up here in the utopia that is Canada I have to do that every time I vote. I have even been known to vote for a more problematic candidate than the least problematic candidate I would otherwise be voting for (even if s/he wasn't my ideal candidate), to ensure that the most problematic one doesn't get elected. (It's called strategic voting, which occurs in multi-party systems, and which is of course advocated by some parties even where it isn't remotely strategic, just to get themselves elected. "Electability" as a scare tactic rather than a serious discussion, y'know.)

Some things really are just too absurd to believe, though.

[xchrom]

5. yes -- and i want to force everyone to believe in the tooth fairy too.

[suffragette]

7. Glad to recommend this

for the clarity and honesty you bring to this issue.

I imagine there are at least a couple elements at work, including some who want to keep the current system, some who would prefer to see HR 676 or something close to it pass and some who want to pick at anything Edwards (or insert the candidate not of your choice) says or is reported to have said or intimated.

I'm in the pro HR 676 camp myself, but I'm not going to bash the other other plans until I see what they really are. I'd rather get the people into Congress who will support HR676 and have it go forward to a Democratic president to be signed and that is only possible if we get all of those people elected.

[Kajsa]

8. I don't believe Edwards suggests forcing anyone to go

see a doctor.

What I got from his quotes is, he's advocating preventative healthcare.
Someone who is covered for annual physicals and checkups should utilize them.

Those who are uninsured are more likely to stay away from annual checkups,
where early detection of potential problems can save lives and yes, money
in the long run.

The notion that people can only see "government doctors". as suggested
in one thread is absurd.
Just ask anyone who lives in a country with socialized healthcare.
They can pay to see a private doctor and many do.

[FreeStateDemocrat]

9. Sounds like an AMA spin, similar to not being able to see your own doctor used to defeat universal

health care in the past. They have sure hooked a number of fish at DU for something that has not even grown any legs in the "corp whore mass media."

[Blackhatjack]

10. "...less than 5 percent of total U.S. health care spending goes toward prevention."

THis is the point of Edwards' comments.

Many people who are 'faux outraged' at John Edwards' healthcare proposal obviously have not read it and are relying upon other disingenuous or ignorant posters for their faulty information.

A couple of truths about Edwards' healthcare plan:

First, as a 'covered individual' you have a choice. You can choose to continue with your present private insurance backed healthcare plan, or you can opt to join a 'government administered medicare for everyone' plan. Which ever does the best job will draw the most people, and the competition will drive down the overall costs of the private insurance plans.

This means that the healthcare plan put forth by John Edwards will create 'change' in the healthcare services delivery system which will evolve on an incremental basis. You cannot just switch to universal single payer healthcare overnight for everyone, and anyone who thinks that is possible logistically has no idea how the present healthcare system is constructed. It would be the equivalent to shutting down the government for lack of funding.

Second, the present healthcare system administered by insurance companies is based on treating 'sick' policyholders, as the quote above points out. Edwards' plan would make 'preventative healthcare care' available WITHOUT COPAYS. It means people would take advantage of the preventative medical care and that would save huge amounts of healthcare resource dollars that eventually would be paid out in treating 'sick' individuals.

One fact cannot be avoided. If people receive early detection of a condition or illness, it is substantially cheaper in terms of healthcare dollars to treat them and the outcomes are tremendously better for the patients.

People who grab headlines by making wild accusations about Edwards' healthcare plan would be wise to actually read Edwards' healthcare plan before showing their ignorance. But if the goal is merely to smear Edwards, I am sure they would not waste their time reading the plan they are so vehemently attacking when that was not their real concern in the first place.

[Pris-LA]

20. Noob here...

I want to recommend this post but I don't know how to do it. The proverbial nail is hit on the proverbial head with this post. I would rather see the insurance executives hung with the guts of the pharmaceutical executives (figuratively, not literally!) but Edwards is the person with the most chance to win who "gets" health care.

Does this work as a recommend? :kick:

[jsamuel]

21. Welcome to DU!

I am not sure, but I think you need some 10 or 50 comments before you are allowed to Recommend.

[Blackhatjack]

35. Thanks and welcome to DU! n/t

[robcon]

11. The OP begs the question

"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?"

Why, indeed? Is it the nanny-statism of the majority of DUers on a poll say that medical care should be required, as Edwards recommends?

Why, indeed, on earth would these people require people to have medical care they may not want?

[The Vinyl Ripper]

14. As I have already pointed out on this thread....

Edwards is a supporter of the War On Drugs.

Hence he has no problem with Gestapo tactics.

It is only a very small step from mandatory urine tests to mandatory checkups.

[iverglas]

29. do you know

-- first, the full version as you have since posted it:

It is only a small step from mandatory urine tests to mandatory checkups..
Edwards supports the War On Drugs.
Ergo he has no problem with Gestapo tactics used against American citizens.
After mandatory urine tests, the next step is mandatory checkups.
Which will of course include drug testing.
Welcome to the land of the free, the one with the highest incarceration rate in the world.

-- I have seldom read anything as dumb and/or disingenuous.

It is only one small step from mandatory urine tests in certain situations to, oh, mandatory church attendance for everyone.

I'll bet you can outline the steps down that slippery slope for us.

You know, even a stopped clock sometimes mispeaks himself, or gets misquoted.




http://www.fstdt.com/winace/pics/index.htm

I actually expected better from you.

[iverglas]

15. of course, it doesn't "beg" any question

People who want to use terms from formal logic should learn what they mean.

Is it the nanny-statism of the majority of DUers on a poll say that medical care should be required, as Edwards recommends?

Now, people who don't know what begging the question means can still do it. And you're the one begging the question here, funnily enough:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question

The question IS whether Edwards recommends that medical care be required. Your question assumes that he is, and loads itself with that premise (which I submit is false, or at the very least unproved). Argument in circle.

What Edwards DOES recommend is that people be required to have health insurance. The notion that he would require that people have medical care makes a good meme, it seems, but bad public discourse.

Indeed, there have been people at DU who have commented favourably on such a proposal. That doesn't mean that such a proposal has been made by John Edwards.

[jsamuel]

19. Thank you for taking the time to point out the flawed argument being made against Edwards.

[robcon]

26. I was remarking on the tenor on DU, not Edwards.

The majority of DUers on a poll here agreed with the concept that is attributed to Edwards... that people should be required to see a doctor at the direction of the government.

Edwards may or may not have said or implied that he would 'force' people to have medical visits. But most DUers believe in that sort of nanny-statism, IMO.

That's what I was referring to.

[SOS]

12. It's a DU teapot tempest

This "story" is getting zero coverage anyway.
Only Fox and Yahoo had the story, conveniently placed on Labor Day.
It'll be gone by mid-week.
In today's New York Times, the only mention of Edwards was his endorsement by the United Steelworkers and the United Mine Workers.

[Crunchy Frog]

13. I don't know why he would say something that he doesn't mean.

If his words or his policies were misrepresented, then I hope he clarifies soon. I think this whole brouhaha has alot of potential for damaging the move towards universal health care in this country, so I really hope that it gets clarified, and that Edwards did not really mean what he appeared to mean.

Edit: Apparently enough people on DU have bought into its authenticity for a large percentage of the board to be defending an indefensible policy of forced medical examinations. Won't their faces be red when it turns out that wasn't what Edwards meant at all?

[iverglas]

18. I don't know why someone can't produce a quotation

instead of a line from a report by a single AP reporter which does NOT consist of words spoken by Edwards -- if it did, they would be in quotation marks, and they ain't -- and another that is a quotation but that is ambiguous at best.

On the other hand, he may have said exactly what is written, and I can perfectly well understand someone saying something that didn't come out right, because I've done a lot of it myself. I can also understand that something that said, with its context and in the speaker's voice, could convey a meaning that isn't quite what it appears to be when reproduced in print.

I hope he clarifies soon too. FoxNews is doing the dance now:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,295555,00.html

and even the bloody Guardian has it:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uslatest/story/0,,-6892442,00.html

but still -- the ONLY thing that ANY of them have is that one single report by one single AP reporter. Funny how nobody else seems to have heard him say these things; if someone had, you'd think s/he would have been trying to get a share of the journalistic limelight by now.

[Crunchy Frog]

28. I've seen a couple of posters

who say they heard him say somethng similar at Armstrong's Presidential cancer forum. I do hope this gets clarified soon, and that Edwards didn't mean what the AP reporter represented him as saying.

I hope that some of his supporters on DU will realize that they are doing Edwards more harm than good by arguing in favor of forced medical care.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

16. The problem with John Edward's campaign

I think he would do a good job as President but the knives are out and they will use anything to get him.

[leaninglib]

17. No, because Edwards' political career will be over early next year.

He will not get the VP nod this time; that will more than likely go to Richardson.

[-..__...]

22. It's a requirement in MA.

In Massachusetts, Health Care for All?
A state bill would require universal health insurance. Implementing the initiative is likely to prove a lot harder than passing it

Efforts to extend health insurance to more Americans have been stalled in recent years between liberals' insistence on more government spending and conservatives' advocacy of private-sector approaches. Now Massachusetts may have broken the gridlock with an innovative bipartisan plan designed to achieve nearly universal coverage.

The bill, approved by the heavily Democratic Massachusetts legislature on Apr. 4, marries conservative and liberal ideas. For the first time ever in the U.S., all state residents would be required to have health insurance -- dubbed an individual mandate. Gov. Mitt Romney, a moderate Republican expected to run for the White House in 2008, champions this as a conservative victory that leads residents to take responsibility for their own health insurance. He says he plans to sign the bill soon, although he may first try to change some smaller provisions.

8<-------- Snip -------->8

PENALTIES AS MOTIVATION. That leaves another 200,000 or so uninsured higher-income individuals who are the prime target of the individual mandate. Massachusetts is taking a carrot-and-stick approach. The carrot: a series of insurance-market reforms to make it easier and cheaper to buy insurance. For starters, the state will create a "health insurance connector," an innovation "that will allow individuals and small businesses to buy insurance as if they were a large company," says Dr. Marylou Buyse, president of the Massachusetts Association of Health Plans.

The stick: Beginning in 2008, individuals who don't have insurance will be subject to a penalty equal to half the cost of health insurance. Last year, coverage for an individual ran about $4,000 a year, and nearly $11,000 for a family, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation. "That's a significant penalty," says John McDonough, executive director of Healthcare for All, a consumer advocacy group.

Advocates defend the approach, saying it's similar to requiring drivers to buy auto insurance. But it's still untested, and many Americans may resist being told to pay out for something at least some now choose to go without.

http://www.businessweek.com/investor/content/apr2006/pi20060404_152510.htm

[iverglas]

24. and did you read what you copied and pasted?

What you copied and pasted is talking about requiring individuals to have HEALTH INSURANCE, ***not*** HEALTH CARE.

From what I've seen of the Massachusetts plan, I wouldn't want it and I wouldn't recommend it, and that's putting it mildly. It still wouldn't force anyone to get HEALTH CARE, whether that be annual exams, mammograms or anything else.

Just as I doubt John Edwards has proposed or would propose to do.

[lumberjack_jeff]

23. Exactly. And where are these doctors who would force treatment upon patients who refuse? n/t

[jsamuel]

25. I think this is a case of people getting over excited because they fear something.

Any hint of what they fear will set them off, even if it is not what they fear.

My cat does not fear the hair drier, but does fear the vacuum. If she hears the hair drier, she freaks out, but if she sees what is making the noise, she is fine. People are not animals, but the reaction to fear is similar.

[Celebration]

27. at this point the waters are muddy

It is unclear. All he needs to do is comment on the AP story. Then we won't have to guess.

[renie408]

30. They aren't muddy unless you want them to be. I get tired of

candidates being 'quoted' as saying something that they didn't say at all. It is bad enough that the MSM does it. For people in the DU to do it seems even worse to me.

[Celebration]

33. so, the MSM muddied the waters

That's bad. But muddy they are. Best way for him to deal with it is address the issue, and correct the misunderstanding. Would you rather this not be cleared up? Remember when Gore was criticized for spending so much money on utilities? He had an explanation ready, and it flew pretty well. Candidates are going to get misquoted and misinterpreted sometimes, like it or not. It is up to the candidates to respond in a timely fashion. Kerry probably lost the election because he didn't respond to the Swift Boaters. Maybe it sucks, but that is the way the game is played.

[renie408]

38. The Forbes article is dated September 2, the day before Labor Day...

Could you give him a day or two to answer??

[Celebration]

39. Sure.

I would say, the quicker the better, but I don't think this has spun out of control at all. I'll be interested to hear what he has to say.

I am just glad I am not a candidate having to formulate a decent health care policy. I see pitfalls everywhere I look. And that isn't a good platform, LOL.

[renie408]

31. Thanks for posting this. All the Chicken Littles were starting to drive me nuts. n/t

[Mojorabbit]

44. See

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=1730928&mesg_id=1731520
He did say mandatory and mandatory monitoring.

[Forkboy]

32. I doubt any of his detractors actually believe it.Just trying to score points.

It's lame,and most people see through it,whether it's directed at Edwards or any of the others.People think they're fooling everyone,but it's most likely a very small number that are dumb enough not to notice that one candidate's supporters tend to be the ones leading an attack against another.

Generated controversy by people with agendas must mean it's primary season!

[Mojorabbit]

42. I have no agenda

and would like a clarification one way or another. People here say he said mandatory at the cancer debate. Other people say it is a misrepresentation by the msm. I would like to know which it is.

[Freddie Stubbs]

34. No. It is all rhetoric, and Edwards knows that this plan would never make it through Congress

[LSK]

37. why not?

[backscatter712]

40. I smell a political smearjob

Like mentioned, this smells like off-the-cuff remarks taken out of context, and organizations like Faux Noise making a huge meme "EDWARDS WILL FORCE US INTO THE DOCTOR'S OFFICE!!!"

I'd rather move to a single-payer system where every human being on U.S. soil is covered and given all necessary medical care, and annual checkups are available to all people, when they want them.

[RB TexLa]

41. As long as Jane Roe Vs. Henry Wade is decided law, no one is.

[Mojorabbit]

43. He did say it would be mandatory

See
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O9SgIwzumB4&mode=related&search=

[bobbolink]

45. I BELIEVE there is a lot of fear about taking Edwards seriously.

What and why is the fear behind this crap?

It's not about any issue... it's fear of Edwards.

House, haircut, etc.

FEAR.