John Edwards backs mandatory preventive care

[BradLohaus]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070902/ap_on_el_pr/edwards_2

Democratic presidential hopeful John Edwards said on Sunday that his universal health care proposal would require that Americans go to the doctor for preventive care.

"It requires that everybody be covered. It requires that everybody get preventive care. 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."

I wonder which presidential election will be the first to have a candidate who supports a policy of mandatory healthy diets for all Americans. I'll guess 2032.

[Trainwreck2100]

SO I could go to jail for not changing my oil?

[boutons_]

good idea, but totally unenforceable.

Similar to

"you are free to live in Biloxi or New Orleans, but we won't give you property insurance"

or

"you can play in the NBA, but you can't ride motorcycles or parachute"

or

"we'll sell you health insurance, but at +50% if you smoke or are +10% overweight".

One of the weaknesses of national health insurance is that you are "free" to be as irresponsible, self-destructive in you rlifestyle, then the heatlh insurance tax payers have to pick up the tab for your avoidable lifestyle diseases.

[ChumpDumper]

good idea, but totally unenforceable.Doctors' visits are pretty easily tracked.

[Wild Cobra]

I had to do a double-take...

Boutons making a reasonable statement... Who would have thought.

Let's see. The last time I had a physical was 1992 when it was mandatory for my departure from the Army. I just don't see doctors. I guess it will be 20 years pretty soon for me.

[boutons_]

The problem with cursory checkups, eg the kind that were all the rage for corporate execs, is that they are mostly useless, failing to detect, eg, CVD that kills the checked up person shortly after.

If people continue to be ignorant about health and diet and live poorly (over-eating, eating crap, smoking, drinking, no exercise)

Of course, Big Pharma loves unhealthy people and market the message "don't worry, be sick, we have $$$pills for everything".

And food corps continue to crank totally useless, toxic shit supported by powerful, sinister marketing.

[smeagol]

Not a bad idea.

I haven't done a check up in more than 8 years though.

Under such a plan, I would have to pay a fine.

[101A]

Damn.

I bet the Pharmaceutical industry came up with that one. Great for them.

There is a term for this in the insurance industry:

"Demand Care". It is VERY unpopular.

It also isn't hard to look down this particular slope and see mandates from the government on diet/weight/exercise, etc....

Those of you who think this is a "good idea"?

REALLY???

[Holt's Cat]

Not surprising.

[George Gervin's Afro]

From what I gather Edwards was referring to those folks who elect to participate in the universal healthcare plan. If they choose to participate a prerequisite would be to understand that you must go to the doctor regularly. If you join the Universal plan then you must do whatever you can to be healthy. It would keep costs down.. Not that I completely agree with Edwards but I think I get his point.

[ChumpDumper]

I wouldn't be surprised if insurance companies start adopting a similar policy.

[101A]

I wouldn't be surprised if insurance companies start adopting a similar policy.

You'd think...

but insurance companies are all about the bottom line and: doctors visits don't promote more health; they simply cost more money.

[101A]

From what I gather Edwards was referring to those folks who elect to participate in the universal healthcare plan. If they choose to participate a prerequisite would be to understand that you must go to the doctor regularly. If you join the Universal plan then you must do whatever you can to be healthy. It would keep costs down.. Not that I completely agree with Edwards but I think I get his point.


A "Universal" healthcare plan that is voluntary would be the single most EXPENSIVE solution that a politician could ever conceive (in this Hillary was right; mandatory participation is the ONLY way to keep costs at all under control).

Look up "adverse selection" for a complete explanation.

[ChumpDumper]

You'd think...

but insurance companies are all about the bottom line and: doctors visits don't promote more health; they simply cost more money.If it could save them money later on, they might do it. With the cost of treatments and drugs rising so quickly, that point could be reached sometime in the future.

[spurster]

Edward's mandatory doctor visits is dumb. It sounds like Edwards is getting a little desperate.

[101A]

If it could save them money later on, they might do it. With the cost of treatments and drugs rising so quickly, that point could be reached sometime in the future.



Sorry can't cite anything to back me up here (I will search), but studies have been done that the things that make people healthy are exercise, eating right, avoiding too much sun, etc....

Regular doctors visits DON"T track to increased health, or cost saving later, at all. In fact the only thing regular doctor's visits track to is increased costs.

[101A]

Found it (http://www.dartmouth.edu/~cecs/downloads/jsc80266.pdf)

[101A]

A very brief summary of the article posted above:From Dartmouth (http://www.dartmouth.edu/~cecs/ismorebetter/is_more_better.html)



Is More Better?


There are huge differences in health care spending across the United States. For example, age, sex and race adjusted spending for traditional (fee-for-service) Medicare in the Miami region was $8,414 in 1996, compared to the $3,431 spent in the Minneapolis region. The greater than twofold differences observed across U.S. regions are not due to differences in the prices of medical services or to differences in average levels of illness or socioeconomic status across regions. Rather, they are driven primarily by differences in the aggregate amount of medical services provided to apparently similar populations.

Because many specific treatments are known to be beneficial, such as emergency treatment of heart attacks, or surgery to replace a failing hip joint, most Americans assume that more medical care in general must also be beneficial.

Our current research, however, reveals that those who reside in high cost communities are no more likely to receive specific treatments of proven benefit or discretionary procedures that are likely to improve their function. Spending more, within the range observed in the US, results in greater use of "supply-sensitive" services: more frequent physician and specialist visits, greater use of diagnostic tests and minor procedures, and more frequent use of the hospital as a site of care.

We now have good reason to believe that those who receive more "supply-sensitive" care have no improvement in survival and are unlikely to have better quality of life.

[ChumpDumper]

Well, are we talking "supply-sensitive" care or regular checkups here?

[fyatuk]

Edwards was a tool before he said this, and now he's just a bigger one.