Senator John Edwards has taken to discussing his plans for universal health care coverage, and some of his statements will surely raise eyebrows. No, it is not the fact that his program will cost $100+ billion dollars a year, nor is it the fact that he proposes to pay for the program by eliminating the Bush tax cuts on households who earn $200,000 a year or more. No, what will raise eyebrows--according to an AP report --is the fact that Edwards' program will mandate by law that all Americans must see their doctor for a series of check-ups in order to undergo preventive care.
To say this will not prove popular with the public is a supreme understatement. In the past, conservatives have won elections and maintained popularity with segments of the American public on the basis that the conservative movement is a proponent of limited government. In Edwards' case, the notion of mandatory medical check-ups will surely be construed by the public as significant government over-reach. Edwards has been sinking in the polls and this proposal may finish his campaign off for good.
Curiously, the AP report also makes mention of the fact that Edwards has asked the public to stop driving SUV's while he himself has purchased one. The AP further notes that Edwards has stated he will no longer purchase an SUV in the future. Why is this curious? It would seem like the AP was "lowering the boom" on Edwards as very few readers could walk away from this article with anything other than a negative impression of Edwards' campaign.
Reader Comments ( Page 1 of 1)
1. Big government is already bloated enough. We don't need or want the nanny state.
Steve Bonomo at 6:40PM on Sep 3rd 2007
2. P.S. You can't force people to accept your help. They either want it or they don't. Mandatory insurance is too intrusive by big government to stand up in court, and mandatory check ups is too much of the nanny state.
Steve Bonomo at 7:25PM on Sep 3rd 2007
3. 1) Every credible health care expert advocates a significant shift to preventative care, including regular annual check-ups, as a major element of improving health outcomes and lowering over-all costs.
2) Incentives such as lower insurance premiums can be used to encourage regular check-ups, while other approaches such as higher co-pays are also possible.
3) 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. 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]
As for SUVs, yes, Edwards owns one now--he sold a previous vehicle and purchased a hybrid SUV that gets 36 mpg highway/31 mpg city. If we want to reduce energy dependence and counter global warming, we will all have to make changes. Edwards is already doing that, and he is calling on other Americans to make more thoughtful and forward-looking decisions.
All of this is called leadership -- as opposed to the current inhabitant of the White House, who told us all to go shopping.
Edrie at 9:15PM on Sep 3rd 2007
4. I agree that preventive care is better than waiting for the emergency room, and that insurance should cover it. Incentives are best for convincing people to get their check ups.
Steve Bonomo at 10:52PM on Sep 3rd 2007
5. Anyone who cares about the quality of life in this country of ours should know that when it comes to healthcare we are a disgrace to the civilized world. Fourty-six million of our citizens are uninsured while healthcare is essentially free in Canada, France, England, Italy and countless other countries.
While My candidate and friend is Chris Dodd, the suggestion by John Edwards, whose wife has cancer which earlier detection might have made less severe, has made the most logical suggestion I can imagine to keep the cost of any national healthcare plan within managible limits, to qualify you have to have a physical on a regular basis. No one who is knowledgible would argue that early detection of disease is the most cost effective way to keep down the cost of any healthcare program and mandating it as a requirement is nothing short of a brilliant idea.
The comparative costs of preventive versus remedial care is too well documented for me to have to make that case; it is quite simply vast. An educated guess suggests that for every case that requires hospitalization, that cost per day, would translate to the cost of preventing hospitalization from early detection of 50 to 1.
This does not take into account the loss of productivity from late treatment of illnesses. Also, the encouragement of healthy lifestyles that result from early detection of a wide range of disease prone acvtivities that could avoid the onset if the risk factors are identified early and remedial action taken.
What we also need to do is to enact legislation that imposes an excess profits tax on drug companies who charge more than 115% of the median price charged for a given drug made by them or through them and sold anywhere else in the world.
The effect of this would be two fold as the higher prices we pay subsidize the lower cost of the same drugs all over the world. First we would get lower priced perscription drugs and the tax if imposed could be used to help offset the cost of any national health care plan we hopefully adopt.
Dwight Owen Schweitzer at 12:32PM on Sep 11th 2007