John Edwards on Health Care

You have to see this to believe it.  John Edwards says his health care plan would REQUIRE Americans to go to the doctor for checkups. 

This kind of crap is exactly what allows politicians like George Allen to talk about the "nanny state" and collect votes.  I totally support universal health care so every American has coverage- but if some people choose not to use that coverage they are given- that is their decision.  How is Edwards going to enforce this- will he send the police out to get people who miss their scheduled preventative doctor's appointments?

This guy doesn't even deserve to be mentioned along Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama as a top tier candidate anymore... What a joke.

Comments

[Church Hill Dem]

You're preaching to the choir about Edwards' playing into the GOPs hand regarding the nanny state.

However, Edwards does have a (poorly articulated) point about why mandatory regular checkups should be required for participation in a national plan. You'll note that among the other healthcare "solutions" offered by Kerry during the last presidential cycle was having the government foot the bill/insure the sickest of the sick because they're the most expensive.

Preventative care is considerably less expensive than emergency/intensive care, some say every $1 of preventative care eliminates the need for $3 of emergency/intensive care.

Now with that in mind, Edwards is on to something. Is saying "All Americans must go to the doctor" the right thing to say? No!

Should he have said: "Preventative care is more affordable and keeps familes happy and healthy. If families want to participate in the Edwards plan, then they have to receive the appropriate preventative care services in order to save taxpayers money"? Yes.

[Not Larry Sabato]

Or better yet, offer a tax credit to people who got at least one checkup during the year.

"Offer a tax credit to people who got at least one checkup during the year."?

Let me get this straight -- the person who made this comment believes he has the wherewithal to even read the Edwards health plan (which I can guarantee he hasn't. . .)? Or comment on national health care policy? Go back to regurgitating precinct returns for Burke, little man.

[Dannyboy]

Ben:
That's the right idea with your 11:32 comment. I agree, THAT whould be how its done if you want "mandatory" check-ups. Of course, then it isn't really mandatory, but rather a beneficial thing to do on many fronts, both fiscally and health-wise. I don't think we need to force people into Health Care, but the option should be there if necessary.

There's a reason I pulled my support for Edwards. Though I like his message of "putting the people first" above lobbyists and industry, I think he may just have taken that message a bit too far.

[Pete in Williamsburg]

Ben,

Maybe Edwards is just short-handing his plan too much. The overall goal is to make health care like education: Anyone can use the government provided service or pay extra for a private provider.

However, if someone is a chain-smoker or a couch-potato, and on a government provided health plan, I'd like to see them pay more than those of us who choose a healthier lifestyle.

Tax incentives for those who get check-ups or take preventative steps? I'm all for it. The government tells us how hot the dishwater at a restaurant has to be and how fast I can safely operate my car. Why is that acceptable nannyism and real healthcare isn't? Health problems in the US have as much of an impact on my wallet as dangerous drivers.

[Not Larry Sabato]

I oppose a "fat tax" Pete. :-)

[Not Anonymous 11:46]

We're pulling quotes completely out of context here.

"It requires that everybody be covered. It requires that everybody get preventive care," he told a crowd sitting in lawn chairs in front of the Cedar County Courthouse. "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."

That makes total sense to me. If I never change the oil in my vehicle, I cannot expect the warranty to cover me on mile 299,999 now can I?

You are also missing the moat important part of this article.

The former North Carolina senator said all presidential candidates talking about health care "ought to be asked one question: Does your plan cover every single American?"

"Because if it doesn't they should be made to explain what child, what woman, what man in America is not worthy of health care," he said. "Because in my view, everybody is worth health care."

According to Clinton, which person can we leave behind? Maybe it's those folks the CLinton's screwed on NAFTA.

[Dan Kachur]

Wonder why that would be, Ben?

Tax policy doesn't work to motivate the behavior of the people whom universal health plans like Edwards are targeting. These aren't Yuppies who are deciding whether to invest in bonds or buy a second house. . .

Making check-ups "mandatory" (i.e. if you want to use this insurance, you go for an annual check-up) is a tactic used by some private insurers, and an innovative way to lower the overall costs of an insurance pool. Edwards has a number of these innovations in his plan. How do you enforce it? You take them off the plan if they don't do it.

[James Young]

Ben, you might want to read my post on this. Why does this surprise you? It follows perfectly logically from the notion that the government should be in the business of providing health care.

[Rowhey]

It seems that Johnny Edwards is asking for a lot of things to be "mandatory" these days. He'll make it mandatory to get rid of SUVs. Now, he wants to make it mandatory to go to the doc. What about Christian Scientists? Will he make them go?

[Doug]

James- that's just idiotic, not that Edwards' statement isn't also. And yes Rowhey, those are the only people I would make go to the doctor to the the cult out of them (go L. Ron!).

Anyway, anyone here look at what they do in Europe where they actually have very good health care and everyone is covered? Or Canada? I'll go looksee.

[novamiddleman]

Ben Explain this one

how is a fat tax different from a smoking tax

Another point on this. Smokers already pay more for health insurance, also you pay more as you age.

[Terry]

Ben,

Usually I like to give you a little leeway on your comments but this one is just too far off base to let stand. As you know, I have many years of experience in the health care profession and I can tell you two things categorically: 1)the health care issue is a VERY complicated one and anyone who makes comments without at least some basic understanding of the current system and what is being done to change it now is just blowing in the wind (Sorry, my friend but that is you today) 2)the current health care system is BROKEN and in dire need of fixing. John Edwards is the ONLY candidate with a health care program that includes SPECIFICS. That is why he is picking up the major union endorsements. (See more on this later).

Anyone running for president has to face the fact that platitudes will not work anymore. The American people are literally and figuratively sick of the current system and Michael Moore's SICKO is having a major impact even for those who haven't seen the actual movie. (Yes, that is from a study by the very reputable Kaiser Foundation.)

The government itself knows that the system needs a major overhaul and is trying many different options that include incentives for patients and doctors to do certain things. (What Edwards is talking about) For example, currently there are many pilot programs including some that the federal government is funding to try to determine how to change how we pay for health care for Medicare and Medicaid patients. (Do your readers know the difference between these two programs? I ask because it is just one small example of how complicated this issue truly is.)

John Edwards clearly does not mean that people will be taken to the doctor's office in chains by federal agents. He is talking about the really important need for everyone to start using preventive care so that the system isn't forced to pay huge costs down the line. The examples of this are everywhere today. Just read about all of the children (yes, children) who are being diagnosed with diabetes. This disease has a major impact on the person's quality of life and associated costs are enormous. (And, might I add, the patients have much to gain from taking advantage of preventive care programs. Several of your readers have cited other good examples. Edwards is not suggesting forcing anyone to do anything but his plan does have consequences for patients who choose not to use available preventive services. There is nothing wrong with that.

It has been 15 years since Hillary Clinton tried to fix the health care system. I give her credit for that. And she has been one of many senators that have worked to enhance or create other programs like the Children's Health Initiative that Bush wants to slash in the coming weeks. BUT, Hillary does not have a health care plan with specific proposals. That's not an opinion, it is a fact. She makes the saliant points about curtailing costs and insuring children but has not given any specifics on how to do it. Obama has a more detailed plan but it still lacks the specificity of Edwards' plan.

As I said earlier, this is the main reason why the big unions like the United Steelworkers and the United Mine Workers endorsed John Edwards yesterday. (See my diary on this on Raising Kaine). Actually, I had said there were several hundred people there but since I was in the front of the line it was hard to see the crowd. The newspaper this morning says the crowd was at least 1000. Steve Skvara was there to introduce Edwards. He is the man who asked the question "What's wrong with America" at the AFL-CIO debate. He is now strongly supporting John Edwards.

I have been leaning toward Edwards for awhile now but the rally yesterday is what pushed me squarely into his camp. Why? Because this crowd was pumped up and really ready to help get him elected and their main issue is healthcare. That's what people in the crowd were talking about and what their signs said (including the flatbed truck that the had in the parade that followed the endorsement). The Dems cannot win back the presidency without these blue collar voters (okay,maybe even some Reagan Democrats.)We must win Ohio, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Kentucky, etc. What I saw and heard yesterday shows me that we can win if we address the healthcare issue and our candidate makes a connection with voters so that they believe something will change. This is exactly what I saw and heard yesterday.

I know Hillary is your candidate but you can't just make outlandish statements like you did in this post about her closest rivals. (BTW, the latest polls, including TIME, show Edwards ahead among Iowa voters who attend caucuses. You know that polls that ask "likely voters" or "registered voters" are statistically flawed)

I hope Hillary comes through with a health care plan with specific proposals for what needs to be done and how she will pay for it. She knows the issue very well, undoubtedly better than most people. That's why it is so disappointing for me that she is not responding with a real plan.

I could go on and on on this subject but I do need to get back to work writing about Medicare.

Hope all is well in Burke.

[Pete in Williamsburg]

Not Anon at 11:46,

Thanks for the context clarification. What a surprise that a Democratic candidate was taken out of context. Even if Edwards actually meant check-ups are mandatory, that's sure not what he said.

[Pete in Williamsburg]

On a political spectating note, even if it was out of context, this may tag Edwards as the health care candidate. Thing is, it was Obama who really put this issue into play when he said he wants universal coverage back in January of this year. I think that without Obama making that statement, health care would get the same disregard it received in 2000 and 2004.

That said, the media and the public definitely have an appetite for this topic. Every statement and hint about health care reform gets a lot of commentary and a lot of coverage. That's a good sign.

Frankly, I'm convinced that all of the top Democratic candidates are serious about it.

[Rowhey]

"The whole idea is a continuum of care, basically from birth to death," he said.

Sounds like cradle to grave socialism to me.

[Doug]

See just because you say socialism doesn't make it so, but why should anyone take you seriously when you knee jerk that word out, Rowhey?

Is our public education system socialism? Everyone MUST pay for it, kids or no. Kids MUST attend, no matter their desire (ok, parents can get comparable outside of the public system). So, is that socialism? And are you making the assertion that some people just shouldn't have health care access?

I'm not supporting mandatory health care, but a system that makes it easily available to all is a moral obligation of a society.

[Pete in Williamsburg]

Rowhey,

Wrong. It's capitalism. Our public education system helps ensure that everyone has the basic tools to participate in the national economy. No excuses.

An actual healthcare system will do the same. It will help ensure an effective workforce and it will also be one less excuse for someone who does not take part in the national economy.

Businesses will benefit greatly and so will those of us who continue to purchase private healthcare.

The best analogy is public education: Public for anyone and private for those who can afford it.

If you're worried about the fact that since the government is providing the health care, they now have all sorts of private info about the patients, don't worry about it. The government already knows your SSN, your address and your salary. You'll be fine.

[Rowhey]

Doug,
Spare me the crap. You know damn good and well that John Edwards has continued his march to left for some time now.

It's a far stretch to go from talking public education to making a link to health care....and you know it.

Take a look at the second para. of this thread. Ben invokes the word "nanny state."

If you think that government can run health care, think again. And, don't start lecturing me about single payor crap, either. I'll puke at the first reference to it.

[Doug]

Rowhey- see Pete, he splains it better than me. It is a good and valid comparison. It is a basic moral obligation of a society to provide education and health care for all. And it is Capitalism! I love that! You know the statistics that $1,500 for health care goes onto every American made car vs. foriegn competition.

But if all you can do is denigrate people who give their lives to public service, or really the whole country, with your last statement, you go right ahead. Government is people. Corporations is people. We are all people. There are not these amorphous horrible entities out there, but just people- some who don't do a good job and some who do. Some who are in systems that promote failure, some who aren't. I'm sorry that you have such disdane for the people in this country.

(and yes, I'm going overboard into ridiculous land, but you led me there. All I can do is make fun.)

[Rowhey]

Doug,
The compasion between public education and health care is not apt and, in fact, is quite flawed. Given the status of public education (ask inner-city families in Cleveland or D.C. whether they'd like school choice), I'd hardly point to it as a paragon of accomplishment.

Given the monopoly status of tax-funded schools, it's hardly surprising that K-12 education is far from a robust market in terms of product differentiation, competing models, etc. (Indeed, higher ed in the U.S., though heavily subsidized through tax dollars, is a far more varied market largely because schools have to compete for students and funding dollars.)

Right now, the health care system is far from that of a monopoly. We have multiple payers ranging from health insurance carriers to private entities. We have multiple suppliers.

In stark contrast, government subsidized public education has only one major payer: government. And, there isn't much competition in terms of suppliers.

The net result here is that parents have limited opportunities, if any. It is a one-size fits all approach.

If you want limited choice coupled together with inefficient distribution of resources, the public education model is best for you.

[Dannyboy]

You know, this debate is all well and good. But what I'd REALLY like to see is for Ben to finish the analysis of the likely Davis-Gilmore convention.

[Rowhey]

Dannyboy,
I read his earlier posted analysis. There's much of it that is on point.

However, I don't think that a Democrat can truly provide the necessary insight to an RPV Convention.

You can look at a candidates strengths and weaknesses....in the various units. However, in the end, I don't think that anyone can truly predict the outcome of a convention.

It all boils down to who puts meat in the seats.

[Doug]

Thank you Senator Craig:

"It all boils down to who puts meat in the seats."

I got ick all over me Rowhey!