Edwards Video... We MANDATE preventive care & check-ups

"...As part of the universal healthcare system, we don't just cover preventive care, we mandate preventive care. In other words if you're in this universal healthcare system you have to go for regular, periodic check-ups, you have to be monitored..."


Later ??? What technology?

"...and mandated use of technology too, not just record keeping..."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O9SgIwzumB4

Mandating check-ups is not listed on his site, but he has said this several times now. This could force more people to opt for a private insurance if they are afraid of mandated check-ups. What happens for example, if you would rather try and lower your cholesterol level through diet and exercise instead of taking the medicine that the doctor has prescribed for you?


More discussion here
http://blog.johnedwards.com/story/2007/9/4/16421/63643#commenttop

I was getting nothing but grief in this thread until I finally found the damned video. I swear I was beginning to think I imagined the mandatory thing lol.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=1730928&mesg_id=1731520

leaves hell of a lot of room for interpretation.

thread. The day of the Livestrong forum I knew a few people said that Edwards said check-ups would be mandated and thought one of the Edwards supporters would post the video, maybe I missed it?

I guess as Edwards' speaks more details of his plan are spelled out, but I think the mandatory part of his plan will now hurt anyone advocating a universal health care plan :(

didn't cost big bucks, and then I remembered youtube. I agree with you, I think Edwards can cause real damage to anyone else with a universal health care plan, and I hope he issues a more detailed explanation of what the hell he's talking about.

was posted in the comments.

Cannot confirm or deny this comment, but it's food for thought

http://blog.johnedwards.com/story/2007/9/4/16421/63643#commenttop

"I have a real problem with mandated health care procedures. As a Chiropractor that is my 1st choice for preventative health care. People with optimally functioning nervous systems have less need for disease care. Most people don't realize that chiropractors became licensed because chiropractic proved to be very effective in the Flu Pandemic of 1918. Patients under chiropractic care were not dying from the flu. Patients under medical care were experiencing about a 50% mortality rate. The perception of chiropractors as back doctors has only come about over the last 30 years."

whether or not Edwards had said this :(

Been there before where you know it and cannot find the proof...it's maddening, but you were not crazy :)

I'm surprised at how many people accept this plan, I'd never have expected it on DU.

if one of the candidates who weren't so universally beloved, sanctified even, had suggested it.

That being said, I'm also surprised at the level of acceptance; it stinks of desperation and capitulation.

views of their candidate, but forcing someone to have check-ups in order for them to be covered by the government system will likely cause this plan to fail.

From the video...

"In other words if you're in this universal healthcare system you have to go for regular, periodic check-ups, you have to be monitored..."

The threads denying that Edwards has made this statement currently have 37 and 17 R's and this thread has zero :( Although you posted the video in the other thread it could be missed by many people, would you give this thread an R or start another one with the video? Thanks, I would not have known to look for this if you had not mentioned it the day of the forum.

Your post on 8/27

"I'm going to have to read his plan more carefully because I don't understand what he's saying. I don't like mandatory checkups, and I'm wondering why he'll have an agency set up to deal with denials if it's a true universal plan."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3480706&mesg_id=3480843

but I wonder if watching the video will change many opinions. Edwards couldn't have been more pleased with himself when he talked about his mandates with Armstrong, and the authoritarian posturing is hard to miss. If people accept that, I'm afraid they'll accept anything.

said and this is a perfect example of how easily it can also be distorted here. Guess none of the Edwards' supporters watched the Livestrong forum.

:shrug:

And now the idea that mandatory visits, for our own good, has already been marketed as well as the idea that, possibly all universal healthcare systems will mandate visits :(

Here is an official clarification of the Edwards health care plan with respect to the idea of mandatory doctor visits that has gotten so much attention recently. I admit I was puzzled by this seemingly out-of-character position from John Edwards, but this statement puts my mind at ease. The word mandatory applies to the insurers, not the patients:



Insurance companies need to be forced to give people the preventive care that makes sense under any rational health care system (which is far from what we are afflicted with now). Many of us pay high premiums for a high-deductible policy and have nothing left over for the preventive care that would have to come out of the deductble. That's crazy. The Edwards plan does away with that, along with the dreaded pre-existing condition clause that chains you to an insurer or job if you get sick. It's the best, most comprehensive plan I've seen so far, and I really hope it will replace the present unfair, wasteful system.

preventive health care" in the cancer forum. He hasn't clarified anything, he's just talking over his previous statement. If he mis-spoke, he should say it and absolutely deny that he's requiring mandated office visits as he said to Lance Armstrong.

/misplaced quotation marks

now they want to pretend they meant something else...they need to stop digging.

"...As part of the universal healthcare system, we don't just cover preventive care, we mandate preventive care. In other words if you're in this universal healthcare system you have to go for regular, periodic check-ups, you have to be monitored..."

Watch the video again and listen to the question being asked by Lance Armstrong, the above is part of his reply. And I must say if this is what the campaign is now saying to try and backtrack on his statements they are just digging a deeper hole.

In other words if you're in this universal healthcare system you have to go for regular, periodic check-ups,

Doesn't appear hard to understand to me, again watch the video.

:)

"...and mandated use of technology too, not just record keeping..."

I have no idea what technology he is referring to with this statement.

I think he's talking about mandating that the technology be available to everyone. In other words, don't just pass people through the doctor's office to say they had their checkup - aka recordkeeping. Actually make everything available to all citizens!

I don't think it's a bad idea, but I also think that the frequency would depend on age. Young adults in their prime could do fine with fewer checkups.

he specified required medical check-ups, and it was in the context of the feds stepping into the process of diagnosing and monitoring potential diseases of US citizens.

For example, it's been predicted for many years, but today it is in the news quite a bit, that DNA mapping will indicate to people what diseases they may be at risk for.

Big Brother has already said if you're 'arrested' (not 'convicted') of a crime your DNA will taken and put in a database. I believe it was back in the 70s when I read a news article that congress had removed ownership of your DNA from each of us, to provide a monetary incentive to a budding industry.

Hey, in China, I understand the state owns your organs, too.

the person has the option.

I find myself now wondering about HR 676 and mandatory care. Guess I'll have to go read it closely to find out.

plan will become suspicious.

:argh:

.

One wonders

:banghead:

Mandatory DNA mapping...now that could get into nightmare territory. I try to remember that there's always a possiblity that a RWinger will be president after our next Democratic one. :scared:

"single-person targeting"?

I think the genome project is brilliant, and I expect a lot of suffering could be eliminated with DNA mapping, but the potential harmful consequences may be worse than splitting the atom.

The possibilities are endless. This is scary stuff.

directly by the system? The answer is of course doctors will fabricate illnesses for the money like they do now, but there will be no counter force, like greedy insurance companies working against them. They will bleed the state. This needs to be well thought out.

for any pitfalls as well as benefits in other countries.

I don't know who is advised Edwards on some of this stuff.

From a post on this topic on another board:

“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.” -- CS Lewis

All that glitters is not gold, and that lad's luster is blinding to many.

because its excesses are not regulated by conscience.

He is talking about 2 different health care systems. The first on is a private system, and there are folks who will stick with the private companies. The second is the Universal Healthcare System, which is a version of Medicare. If you are getting health insurance from the government, which UHS would be, part of the rules would be mandatory check-ups. I don't see anything wrong with this. Having mandatory check-ups would keep the costs down, as you would find disease, or possible problems sooner, and be able to fix them with less intervention. This makes good business sense as well as medical sense. The only problem I would have with it, is if I couldn't choose which doctor I wanted to see.

As for "mandated use of technology", that is for women, mammograms, instead of just manual breast exams. Colonoscopy instead of barium and a x-ray. Having hearing checked with a machine rather than just a tuning fork. Maybe he was also thinking of stem cells, and other forms of healing, as being "use of technology".

This all is within rights of the Universal Healthcare System. Doctors, even now, cannot make people do what's good for them. If to keep your insurance, all you had to do was have a check-up, what is the big deal. It doesn't mean your high blood pressure, will magically disappear, or that you will be forced to take pills. I know, in my case, because I had access to a doctor, we finally figured out the how's and why's of what was making it difficult for me to sleep. This was not an over night discovery, but took at least 12 visits and a sleep study. I can't wait for UHS, I want my meds back so I can sleep at night again.

zalinda

Edwards campaign slogan- "Forced colonscopy for all!"



http://www.southparkstudios.com/downloads/display_sound... ...

Here we go again, the 3 types of defenders - 1."Mandatory doctor visits are no big deal!" 2. "He did not say that!, The AP is making it up!"
and 3. "He is not advocating mandatory anything!, and anyway what's wrong with that?"

his advisors. He is not stupid and so he surely knows that the Big Brother argument will be raised as a concern (rightfully IMO). So he will either clarify and say exactly what he meant or it will be dropped from any of his future remarks on universal health care without further comment. My guess is the second possibility.

Has anyone here who has been so vocal against what he said actually tried to contact the Edwards campaign, requesting an immediate response to these concerns, to be posted on DU for all to see?

C'mon folks, do your solemn duty. Ask the man!

First, there are a couple of DUers who have emailed questions about these statements to the Edwards campaign and will post any answers when they get them.

Second, it won't be enough for him to ignore his own statements. He's going to have to issue specific clarifications, or this isn't going to go away for him. Unfortunately this may be used by the RWingers to dog Kucinich or anyone else supporting universal health care, so I hope he starts explaining himself very soon.

He needs to reformat his speech on universal health care and present it that way in the future. Then, if he is attacked on his earlier statements, he can simply point to his clarified remarks. I wouldn't want him to be defensive because that will kill him for sure.

I'm glad to hear that some DUers are following up with JE. As a supporter of his, I think he SHOULD be absolutely clear with us.

:thumbsup:

which system will you choose? If you're rich? Who do you really suppose is going to be mandated here?

The solution is simple. One single payer plan, that covers everyone, with no obligations. You can use it if and when you want and need it.

mandate anything.

Exactly! Who will be mandated here, not the wealthy.

mandated part of his government provided system.

doesn't understand most Americans' experience of health care.

That's as personal as it gets, and most people don't want the government dictating them what to do with it.

insurance to mandated universal healthcare, that's a big leap.

Poorer people will be mandated, wealthy people will have a choice.

of him saying it in Tipton reported by the AP, which is just a MSM smear because they are afraid of him.

But what's wrong with mandated checkups anyway? It's for your own good.

One could make a long list of stupidities, indignities, and atrocities justified by those five words.

which people were posting to during the conference and where the mandatory doctor's visits was mentioned.

They were they tampering in real time, all to smear Edwards. How clever!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3480706&mesg_id=3480843

What is curious is how the many Edwards supporters missed this mention while watching the forum, whether live or delayed, and then posted how these were just RW talking points etc.

All one has to do is glance through the comments in these threads

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x1730928#1732211

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x1729074#1729588

Sort of an encapsulation of all the arguments used by the Edwards apologists.

Would that include making fat people to exercise and diet?

Doctors push dangerous prescription drugs and many intelligent people opt to avoid those risks and use safer natural alternatives to lower cholesterol or address blood sugar imbalances, for example. There are now some mainstream doctors advocating use of vitamins, foods or supplements to treat mental illness and even serious heart conditions with great success.

Any universal healthcare system MUST include the element of choice for patients.

Moreover some people simply don't want to undergo the pain of tests. I've had issues with collapsing veins and avoid blood tests whenever possible, for example, though I eat healthily and will get tested if anything feels amiss.
But I've seen too many people, my parents included, whose lives were destroyed because some routine test led a doctor to insist that they take dangerous drugs. Dad now has Parkinson's after using statin drugs for slightly elevated cholesterol. He had no family history of heart problems or other issues related to high cholesterol. Mom has permanent health problems from heart medicine her doctor prescribed.

These drugs are dangerous, and patients should always have a right to choose.

Note: I am no Edwards basher. I voted for him last time and was on the verge of endorsing him this time, but am holding off now because of his position on this issue.

Edwards will send SWAT teams to each American home.
They will be under orders to drag all Americans at gunpoint to the doctor where they will be fitted with collars and microchips.
American DNA will go to secret lab for additional experimentation and manipulation.
GPS satellites will monitor movement and micro-cameras will be surgically implanted in foreheads. The video feed will be beamed to
to a surveillance center to observe your dietary habits.

That's what I heard on Fox News.

I also heard that, under the Edwards plan, you will get a free annual check up if you are in the Medicare plus system.
If you choose not to go, your coverage and premiums will be affected.
However after reading Fox News and DU, I have blindly accepted the first scenario, since I hate reading detailed policy papers.

choice. Do you think the people in our country will go from private insurance to mandated universal healthcare, that's a big leap.

The reality is, based on his own words, you'll be forced to get a check up whenever John Edwards thinks you need one, otherwise you won't be allowed into his universal healthcare/universal insurance plan.

I don't recall him saying that. When did he declare himself to be a doctor?

I don't know where he's getting his advice, he hasn't told us, but the medical profession is going to be split on this proposal. He's the one who's ultimately be responsible for his platform.

The medical profession has never considered forced check-ups as an ethically sound practice, beyond a very few exceptions, writing prescriptions for example. So, if this isn't his own idea, he's basing his plan on the argument that appeals to his own ideas. I'll stand by my statement that he's ultimately deciding when we need to visit our own doctors.

The larger the project, the more energy you need pumped into it. European countries may or may not have this or that mandatory category, but how many European countries are dealing with a single population block of almost 300 million people? Not many by my count(at least until the EU comes together). Their populations also aren't as diverse(they also have their fair share of issues with immigration and integration). They're also a more aging population than here in the US, so something will have to give over there at some point.

The funny thing is that it might be easier to mandate such a thing after such a system is in place. It will be the new normal, we will be increasingly dependent on that new system, so you'd end up with less resistance to forcing people to do whatever.

I would imagine that either way, before or after, the government will mandate check-ups. This is the information age. This is the digital database age. You must know what it wrong with you. Well maybe you don't, but someone must.

Like I said, I'm completely against it. However, if you want that system to work over the long term, more and more aspects of that system will require participation from more and more people. Little can be left to voluntary action. Voluntary leaves far too much to chance.

without resorting to mandating MD visits:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=1730928&mesg_id=1736097

The US isn't making any bold new initiatives here, it's been done before.

edited to add this one:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3497851&mesg_id=3497952

Dealt makes it sound as if there is, or has been, a solution. Aging populations are relatively new. Universal healthcare is relatively new. We haven't even hit the problem yet. Officially, people still get to retire at 65.

I agree, we're not making any bold initiatives. Large scale projects have been going on for a few thousand years. At each step, more people have been required to participate.

with Edwards' plan is that it's based on universal insurance coverage. That can't be cost-effective. I've seen plans like Kucinich's taken apart on one MD's 'for universal coverage site,' and the price tag doesn't seem to be a major problem.

This site is an excellent resource:

“Under a single-payer system, all Americans would be covered for all medically necessary services, including: doctor, hospital, long-term care, mental health, dental, vision, prescription drug and medical supply costs. Patients would regain free choice of doctor and hospital, and doctors would regain autonomy over patient care.

Physicians would be paid fee-for-service according to a negotiated formulary or receive salary from a hospital or nonprofit HMO / group practice. Hospitals would receive a global budget for operating expenses. Health facilities and expensive equipment purchases would be managed by regional health planning boards.

A single-payer system would be financed by eliminating private insurers and recapturing their administrative waste. Modest new taxes would replace premiums and out-of-pocket payments currently paid by individuals and business. Costs would be controlled through negotiated fees, global budgeting and bulk purchasing.”


http://www.pnhp.org/facts/single_payer_resources.php

How are we going to get enough people on board when the other side starts talking about stuff like aging populations?

Aging population - how are we going to fully fund Social Security?

Aging population - how are we going to fully fund their healthcare and long term care?

Immigrant population - how are we going to fully fund their care and social services?

If you go to countries like Canada, their immigration policies are tipped in favor of not draining their social services! An immigrant coming to work minimum wage with two kids and an elderly grandparent is a net "drain" on social services, even if they are an overall asset to our society. How are we going to balance that?

Can we "sustain" the same level of social services and healthcare that we admire in other countries? Remember, those countries don't have open borders (which we practically do have). It's just a lot more complicated than saying that if we take the profits from insurance companies, we'll have enough money to go around. I don't think we will.

but these questions better be answered now before we get bombarded with them in the general campaign. Thanks, you've made some excellent observations, that I haven't considered before. I'm going to have to do some research.

But how culturally homogenous was that country when national healthcare was iimplemented?

There are a lot of people in this country who have very little history of seeking medical care except as a last resort.

right now. Of course there's a group that's always going to balk at seeing a doctor, but that's their choice, and they may be able to be reached through better education and understanding. I don't know if that's any different for people in any culture in any other country.

In France, there are huge cultural differences in who accesses the most and least medical care according to what I read.

Do you have any links to studies that reach that conclusion. I'd appreciate it, thanks.

But I read it a while back as part of an overall discussion of mortality rates in countries with nationalized health care. If I remember where I read it, I will get back to you! Even within individual countries like France, mortality rates are different for different groups of people depending on the level of violence, how much they access good prenatal care, how much they access general healthcare, etc. etc.

It makes sense, don't you think?

cultural differences is different than what we experience in the US. We're not completely homogenized here thank god, and our society is clearly influenced by a smorgasborg of religious persuasions as well as cultural ones.

If you find the article, I'd love to read it.

for passing on his his distortions and saving FAUX News the time

To bash away at universal healthcare.

the distortion is in the threads that denied Edwards ever made these statements. There is enough misinformation in the news, we do not need to do that here IMO.

He clearly stated preventive care and visits would be mandated, Edwards should know his plan better than anyone of us posting here.

and forcing him to say all those things in front of a video camera at a cancer forum? I guess I hadn't realized quite how insidious Rush Limbaugh had become.:crazy:

And in fact gives Republicans an opening to attack the whole plan...however worthy it is...

Basic fact is, people do not like the government telling them what to do...particularly when it comes to something as personal as this...

About "mandates:"

It's a choice issue. If we believe that each person has the right to choose when it comes to their own body, then we don't get authoritarian on their health choices. Choice and right to privacy are the underlying issues.

I probably, reluctantly, think that mandates should be in place for children until they are legal adults. Reluctant, because the only point to this is to protect them from bad, or neglectful, parenting. To give them a more equal start in life.

The technology piece is too reminiscent of big brother, and gives me the creeps, to say the least.

The option for private insurance is off my table, too. This does away with the whole point of universal health care, imo.