What is wrong with mandatory check ups?

[tired_old_fireman]

A lot of people have been outraged that Edwards Universal health care plan requires mandatory check ups. I've spent the past day wondering why people would have such a problem with this. If everyone had regular check ups, it appears it would drive health care costs down. It would also save lives. If my going for a check up every few years would make it possible for millions of uninsured Americans to become insured, of course I'll get that check up. If my going for a check up every few years will save thousands upon thousands of lives, of course I'll go for the check up. But, many people won't go for that check up.

I feel like we're a country full of babies that cry every time someone tells us what to do. We saw it during the Carter administration when people freaked out when he suggested that people wear sweaters in their house during the winter to conserve energy. We see it every time someone suggests people drive less or drive smaller cars. We see it when people are told they shouldn't own assault weapons.

I don't know how things are ever going to improve in this country--from global warming, to repairing infrastructure, to fighting poverty without a small amount of sacrifice. I wish more people could look at each issue about how they effect all of us as a whole instead of looking at everything from such a selfish point of view.

That's my thought this labor day.

[uppityperson]

1. "Suggestions" are not "mandatory".

[BlooInBloo]

2. People just like making shit up to bitch about.

[EFerrari]

16. Maybe true, but there is a power imbalance in any relationship

where you have to be naked and barefoot to get an assessment. lol

[BlooInBloo]

18. heh. Mandatory vaccinations, education... there's always someone who'll bitch.

[supernova]

22. Just goes to show

that the groups who aren't ready for univeral healthcare aren't just the GOP fundie/capitalist nuts.

[BlooInBloo]

26. Yup. "Why doesn't governmentt provide healthcare?? (whine)" turns into....

"Why does government make me do things to be healthy??? (whine)"

:rofl:

People simply want to bitch.

[supernova]

30. LMAO!!!

:rofl:

I wonder how many of these guys bitching now are under 50? Over 50 y'll join the anal probing brigade looking for rectal cancer and prostate problems. :rofl:

[CTyankee]

68. Oh, please. Women have plenty of medical "probings" long before they reach 50.

Then they, like men, have to get colonoscopies. A double whammy, so to speak (ahem). Don't complain if you've made it to 50 without fingers in your private bodily cavities (uh, in a medical sense, I mean).

[Skittles]

165. GAWD I hate it when men complain about a FINGER UP THE ASS

talk to me when they stick a g.d. NAIL FILE in you and SCRAPE YOUR INSIDES. :o

[supernova]

170. Isn't that the bestest?!?

I love that yearly joy.

and, and squishing my boobs in a vice until they nearly pop, boy that's some good ole fun right there.

[Skittles]

172. OMG supernova

I got a mammo last week and it hurt like hell, even though I had taken a couple Tylenol. So I got a call - "need to redo, there was movement" (no doubt because it HURT LIKE HELL - lol the tech said HOLD YOUR BREATH as if THAT WASN'T ALREADY HAPPENING).....I don't want to go back but if I do I will request a different tech :o

[supernova]

178. Owie!

:hurts: Totally sympathize, skittles.

I've had three so far and I've had to redo two of them. Turns out there was a water cyst lying rigtht flat on top of the chest wall muscle so they had a hard time seeing it.

[Skittles]

184. every time I get one

I think, in 100 years this machine will be in a torture exhibit

[supernova]

187. Wish they's switch the SoC to MRIs

did they find that MRIs give better readings? esp for people who have dense breast tissue? No pain required.

[Skittles]

194. haven't heard but it does sound promising

I mean please, there has GOT to be a better way and if this was a woman's world WE WOULD ALREADY HAVE IT

[iverglas]

186. one tip no one ever told me, if I may digress

I figured this one out for myself.

>>>> Never schedule a mammogram for the premenstrual period when you are suffering from water retention/tender breasts, if that's the case for you as it was for me. If you can't predict, as I couldn't, reschedule if the appointment falls during the unpredicted tender period. This can even be a factor after menopause. There just isn't any reason to make the whole experience *worse*!

I made that mistake once, and never again. It was still horrible, but not as horrible. And just wait til you need to get a retake that involves looking at something that's kinda up inside your armpit ... and it doesn't work the first, or second, time ... and the technician you happen to get is a total miserable unfriendly jerk ...

http://www.craftsayings.com/projects/gag_gifts/ermabombeckscontest/index.shtml

Erma Bombeck Writing Competition
1st place in Humor Category
Winner Leigh Anne Jasheway of Eugene, Oregon

The first mammogram is the worst. Especially when the machine catches on fire. ...

But this is the one I was looking for; I always think it was Erma Bombeck, but I find it only as author-unknown. The hospital clinic where I had my first had a stack of them at reception.

The Mammogram
(Author Unknown)

For years 'n years they've told me
Be careful of your breasts.
Don't ever squeeze or bruise them,
And give them monthly tests.

So I heeded all their warnings
And protected them by law;
Guarded them very carefully,
And always wore a bra.

After 30 years of careful care,
The doctor found a lump.
She ordered up a mammogram
To look inside the clump.

"Stand up very close," she said,
as she got my tit in line,
"And tell me when it hurts," she said,
"Ah yes... There... That's just fine."

She stepped upon a pedal,
I could not believe my eyes!
A plastic plate was pressing down,
My boob was in a vise!!

My skin was stretched 'n stretched
From way up by my chin,
And my poor tit was being squashed
To Swedish Pancake thin!!

Excruciating pain I felt,
Within its vise-like grip,
A prisoner in this vicious thing,
My poor defenseless tit.

"Take a deep breath," she said to me.
Who does she think she's kidding?
My chest is smashed in her machine,
I can't breathe and woozy I was getting.

"There. That was good." I heard her say
As the room was slowly swaying,
"Now, let's get the other one."
Lord, have mercy, I was praying.

It squeezed me from the up and down,
It squeezed me from both sides,
I'll bet she's never had this done,
To her tender little hide.

If I had no problem when I came in,
I surely have one now...
If there had been a cyst in there,
It would have popped -- ker-POW!

This machine was made by man,
Of this I have no doubt...
Oh I'd like to get his balls in there,
For months he'd go "without"!!

[Bake]

275. I just had my annual prostate exam last Friday.

I survived it. Didn't ENJOY it, but I survived it.

:rofl:

Bake

[Trillo]

57. Nah.

The government provided healthcare plan is HR 676 (it removes private health insurance corporations completely), and the plan that has caused the uproar is not a plan that removes private insurers from the healthcare process.

Essentially, the plan to keep healthinsurance profiteers in business is being justifiably mocked. That's how I read it, at least so far.

[rodeodance]

261. BINGO

[texastoast]

325. How dare you suggest integrity in my lifestyle?

Damn it, can I please smoke and get lung cancer insurance? And, further, can I please eat a 3,000 calorie a day diet and get diabetes insurance? I'm FREE to do, so, right? It's in my constitutional rights, yes?


:wtf:

[soothsayer]

3. sounds fascist, dictaturial

[BlackVelvet04]

4. I don't trust the medical community and have good reason

for it. Edwards can kiss my ass.

[StarryNite]

31. Amen to that!

When it comes to health care, one size does not fit all. For Edwards to dictate that if we don't play by his rules and have mandated check-ups we don't get to have national health care is reprehensible. For instance there are many scientists and doctors who feel that mammograms are not that safe or accurate. Yet Edwards is saying they would be mandatory for women. That's pure bullshit. What other tests is he going to make mandatory in order to be on his plan? Just the other day I was defending Edwards to my husband who had said Edwards was a jerk. It looks like I owe him an apology.

[CTyankee]

72. Oh, c'mon. This is semantics. Edwards needs better terminology.

And after all this hoopla, he'll get it. His advisors will make it happen.

There is no way you can make medical checkups mandatory, but there CAN be a massive public education campaign to persuade people to get them. Everybody will be covered under a universal health care program whether they get check ups or not, it's that simple and Edwards must know that.

I mean, if you deny people urgent health care because they skipped a doctor's appointment, what is the point of having universal health care in the first place?

This is a blip on the screen, folks. Calm down...

[iverglas]

188. forgive me for missing

the earlier voice of reason on my first pass through. ;)

[OzarkDem]

75. Agree about mammography

but patient advocates have been very vigilant in making sure the National Cancer Institute's guidelines reflect the real scientific evidence w/ regard to mammography screening and will continue to do so. Those who follow the research know that mammography doesn't always reduce risk of breast cancer, may increase risk in some women if performed too frequently, and are of little to no benefit for women under age 50.

Health care advocates will always be at the table in decisionmaking for federally funded programs. They're much more involved in evaluating public programs than in the private (corporate)sector. In that sense, people who sign up for government funded health care under a plan like Edwards' would have some asssurance the health screenings they undergo would be closely regulated.

[BlackVelvet04]

100. I wanted to have a sonogram

instead of a mammogram (at MY expense) and the doctor's office said "we don't write scripts for that". They insisted I get a mammogram if I wanted my prescription so I told them to fuck off and got another doctor.

Here's a question.....last time I did research Mexican women had lower breast cancer rates while taking higher dose birth control and hormone replacement....that is UNTIL they moved to the U.S. and started having yearly mammograms. Why do you think that is?

[iverglas]

191. My dog barked. It rained.

Why do you think that is?

Sez I. You say:

Mexican women had lower breast cancer rates while taking higher dose birth control and hormone replacement....that is UNTIL they moved to the U.S. and started having yearly mammograms. Why do you think that is?

I'm not gonna claim that my dog makes it rain by barking, if you won't claim that yearly mammograms make Mexican women in the US get breast cancer.

Of course, I can tell whether it rains when my dog barks. I don't even know whether what you said is true.

Are Mexican women in the US not disproportionately (relative to the population as a whole) without access to yearly mammograms, to start with? Might it be more at-risk women having them? Women with relatively more disposable income / higher socioeconomic status, which might carry risk factors in themselves, who are able to afford the service or the insurance to pay for it? Might a very different diet have something to do with it?

http://www.cancerproject.org/survival/cancer_facts/breast.php

Asian countries, such as Japan, have low rates of breast cancer, while Western countries have cancer rates that are many times higher. 25,26 However, when Japanese girls are raised on westernized diets, their rate of breast cancer increases dramatically.

The traditional Japanese diet is much lower in fat, especially animal fat, than the typical Western diet. In the late 1940s, when breast cancer was particularly rare, less than 10 percent of the calories in the Japanese diet came from fat. 27 The American diet, of course, is centered on animal products, which tend to be high in fat and low in other important nutrients. The fat content of the average American diet is in the range of 37 to 40 percent of calories.

Countries with a higher intake of fat, especially animal fat, have a higher incidence of breast cancer. 25,28,29 Even within Japan, affluent women who eat meat daily have an 8.5 times higher risk of breast cancer than poorer women who rarely or never eat meat. 26 The Surgeon General's Report on Nutrition and Health 30 stated: "Indeed, a comparison of populations indicates that death rates for cancers of the breast, colon, and prostate are directly proportional to estimated dietary fat intakes." ...

http://www.cancer.org/docroot/NWS/content/NWS_1_1x_Breast_Cancer_Rates_On_The_Rise_Among_Asian_Americans.asp

Breast cancer rates among Asian Americans have traditionally been lower than those of other Americans, but that may be changing.

The rates of breast cancer among some women of Asian-American descent, particularly Japanese Americans, may be approaching those of white women, according to new research.

... Asian women have some of the lowest breast cancer rates of any group in the world, while the rates are highest in countries such as the US.

Much of this has been linked to differences in lifestyle factors such as diet, exercise, body weight, and choosing to have children later in life (or not at all).

... Over this five-year period, breast cancer rates among Asian Americans older than 50 increased by slightly more than 6% per year. In contrast, the increase among whites averaged only 1.5% per year, and was even lower among African Americans.

The researchers also looked at the numbers among different Asian-American groups. The highest increases were among Japanese Americans, who were the earliest to settle in large numbers in the Los Angeles area.

By 1997, these rates were higher than those seen for blacks, and were approaching those of white women. ...

Me, I'll say that barking dogs are the problem. And I'll bet I could show at least as close a correlation to support my theory as you could to support yours, if you want to state a theory and not just insinuate it.


And I'll still say that believing that John Edwards actually proposes to force women to have mammograms requires the capacity to believe an awful lot of absurd things before breakfast. Which some people apparently can do.

[StarryNite]

185. I had a neighbor

who felt a lump in her breast. She went to the doctor who also felt it and sent her in for a mammogram. The mammogram didn't show anything suspicious. My neighbor went back to her doctor and told him she felt the lump and she wanted it tested. He did a biopsy and it was indeed cancer. So not only did she go through the mammogram for nothing, she was exposed to harmful radiation in the process.

[BlackVelvet04]

193. We've always been told

radiation can cause cancer....so now they want to squish my breast and radiate it and that's good for me?

[BootinUp]

5. I think at 30 yrs old

people should have to renew, like in Logan's Run.



j/k :lol:


Actually its not a bad idea, I have no answer as to how well it will play out.

[undeterred]

6. Consider what he is going through right now.

Elizabeth has breast cancer. The lump in her breast was 9cm when it was discovered because she had not had regular mammograms. That's a lump that has been growing for years, not months. She said "This didn't have to happen". If her cancer had been caught at an annual screening, the treatment would have been cheaper, and her life would have been saved.

I had a mammogram this year because of Elizabeth Edwards and what she said. My last one was 15 years ago. Thank goodness it was perfectly clean.

I don't think there should be a penalty or anything, but I really think people should take their own health seriously. She may not live to see her children grow up, and its because she didn't have regular screenings.

[niyad]

63. so she had the money and didn't get HER annual checkups?

[undeterred]

82. Evidently.

I didn't have insurance so I had an excuse. But there are mammograms available if you look around and screening mammograms are really not that expensive.

[LSK]

284. yeah, just like millions of people.....

:eyes:

[partylessinOhio]

73. This copycat "runtothedoctor becausesomeone noteablegot adisease"

is for the birds. If Elizabeth not getting mammograms is Edwards reason for this bizarre health insurance barb, he can forget about it.

He is NOT my big brother.

Just give everyone health insurance which they can take to any doctor, lab, hospital, etc. Also give everyone a drug card which they can take to any drug store and purchase their medications at a nominal fixed charge. No formularies, no donut holes and no separate plans - just one plan for all. Keep the insurance business crooks out of the middle.

Patient - Provider - Payer (Government)
That is all that should be involved.

[StarryNite]

76. Are you by any chance running

for president? If so, you have my vote.

[undeterred]

84. Well, I think when things get in the news it reminds people

and it educates people. Nothing wrong with that.

[Berry Cool]

83. Not necessarily so. Breast cancer lump size doesn't correlate to the lethality of the tumor.

It bothers me that even Elizabeth Edwards, whom you would think would know better, believes it does.

Most breast tumors HAVE been present and growing for about 10 years before they are ever discovered...even on a mammogram. They can be there for 10 years' worth of mammograms, yet they might not show up until year 10.

The pathology of any malignant breast tumor depends on the nature of the tumor, not the size. Teeny tiny tumors can be vicious, malignant killers. Large lumps can be relatively slow, lazy tumors that, once removed, don't recur.

Don't let the publicity fool you that "early detection means your cancer won't be fatal." It's a sad lie. Early detection just may give you more treatment options. But even mammograms don't guarantee early detection.

Elizabeth is needlessly blaming herself for the fact that her cancer has turned out to be aggressive. It would have been just as aggressive anyway, and it might not have turned up at all on earlier mammograms had she had them, so the point is moot.

Mammograms are not the be-all and end-all of breast cancer detection that they are sometimes touted to be. We need something better. We also need a way to prevent the disease in the first place...something better than telling women it's all up to them to do it through diet and exercise. Obviously other factors are at play here in why some women get such aggressive cancers. Otherwise, Linda McCartney, a slim vegetarian, would be alive today.

[undeterred]

94. Well. EE said she hadn't had one in several years

I don't know if it would have made a difference or not to have yearly screening mammograms, but it couldn't have hurt.

[partylessinOhio]

96. It was recently stated by a commentator that Elizabeth Edwards took

fertility drugs to conceive her two youngest children. I hadn't heard that before but if true do you feel that she took a risk when she took the drugs?

[Berry Cool]

320. No, I don't, but that's only based on what her doctors say

and her doctors say the fertility drugs were not a factor because the type of cancer she has would not have been affected by or developed in response to them. If that's what they say, I would believe it.

[OzarkDem]

103. Excellent post! Thank you!!!!

:applause:

[Ms. Toad]

181. Although I sympathize with Elizabeth Edwards,

regular mammograms would not necessarily have caught it in time. My guess is she was ignoring far more important preventative care measures than the annual mammogram.

My mother had a tumor about that size which was not visible on the mammogram OR subsequent sonogram, even with a needle pointing out the tumor. The surgeon was completely taken aback when it was clear to him during the surgical biopsy that the lump was, indeed, cancer.

My grandmother died from complications of breast cancer. Don't know how it was found.

I have not been regular about mammograms because I don't really expect any tumor I have (and ultimately I likely will have one) to be caught by a mammogram. On the other hand, I am religious about monthly BSE.

The best preventative care is to know your breasts, and to discuss any changes with your doctor, rather than to rely on mammograms which only work well for a portion of the population for which they are recommended or to rely on a doctor who examines your breasts once a year (and can't possibly recall the precise contours of your breasts from one exam to the next).

[Berry Cool]

321. Funny thing is, I had a doctor who advised me AGAINST monthly BSE.

She said the changes that happen in a tumor as it grows in your breast are so gradual that if you do a monthly BSE, you probably won't even notice them.

I was flabbergasted. First time a DOCTOR ever failed to castigate me for not doing one regularly. Then I read in Dr. Susan Love's Breast Book that she too advises against monthly BSEs as doing little good.

And to think there was so much campaigning done aimed at us women telling us a monthly BSE and a mammogram would save our lives. They even used to use little strings of beads to demonstrate: With a monthly BSE you might detect a tumor this tiny but with an annual one it might be THIS big before you see it on a mammogram. (Implying, of course, that with a big tumor you'd be dead and with a little one you'd live.)

[Ms. Toad]

323. I think your doctor is nuts,

If you are familiar with your breasts you can feel relatively small changes. I am looking for changes - not lumps, specifically. When I notice one (at least once a year), I note it, "watch" it over a couple of months, and if the size of the lump or thickening doesn't ebb and flow with hormone changes, or is otherwise unusual, I have it checked out. If I were groping unfamiliar territory, however, I suspect your doctor is right - I wouldn't notice it until it was too late.

At any rate, if I'm checking I'm gonna find it sooner than if I'm not checking, and the sooner I find it, the better my survival rate.

[Richard D]

7. I can think of a few reasons

1. What if a person is ill but doesn't want treatment or for anyone to know that they are ill.

2. This could turn into a huge information gathering database where little of a persons state of being would be their own business. What could this be used for? Use some imagination.

3. What if you live a life where you choose to pursue other forms of healing or medicine.

4. Would finding a disease on one of the mandatory check-ups mean mandatory treatment.

5. Some people's religious beliefs state that they should not go to doctors.

6. What if you have a long-term doctor who knows your status and the mandatory check-up is to be with someone else. Would a person be able to choose their doctors.

[bbgrunt]

28. exactly. In addition, such mandatory medical survelliance

will be the perfect avenue to start mandatory medical treatment for everything from terminal cancer to restless leg syndrome. Mandatory flu shots, experimental treatments, unproven vaccines filled with who knows what and medicate the country into submission No, I do not trust the government with such powers.

I welcome universal single-payer health care. I most certainly do not support mandatory treatment.

[havocmom]

60. Reason #2 is my big concern

Corporate intelligence gathering at its peak: mandatory check-ups for all.

[StarryNite]

62. And while we're in the doc's office

they might as well just insert that little microchip to make sure they can access our health profile more expediently in order to treat us more efficiently should we become sick. wink, wink

[havocmom]

64. Don't forget the outsourceing of transcription and much lab work analysis

Yes, your VERY PERSONAL data all over the friggin world.

Not safer. Not private. Not acceptable.

[Lady President]

88. A couple more for your list

I think your list outlines my concerns very well, especially #2. I'm going to throw in a couple more.

7. How do we get people to the mandatory visits? Are house calls going to be part of a doctor's normal schedule? If not, are the poor or people without public transportation available, going to lose coverage by not going to the the preventative checkups?

8. Is mandatory sick leave for all workers part of the plan? I have a normal 8-5 job with benefits, but without sick days. Will doctors be required to have evening and weekend hours for people like me?



*** My personal situation is that I'm an only child and only grandchild. I have to drive my elderly mother and grandmother to all their appointments, shopping, errands, etc. I do my best, but depending on how often and how many visits would be necessary, I would likely lose my job.

[supernova]

8. It's standard preventative care

getting regular check ups. Newborns do it. And women are required to, simply if we want to keep getting birth control. We ask it for people who perform certain jobs or play sports.

What I want to know is what's so special about those who think they can opt out? And you lose if you try to play the contrarian/curmudgeon/libertarian card.

[Catchawave]

50. Good points....just gonna say, some countries

require MANDATORY physicals to get a driver's license. Over a certain age, here in America too.

I think the people getting upset here probably whined about MANDATORY seat belt laws !

[StarryNite]

53. I think the people not whining here

are the ones that are already running to the doctor for every little thing. The ones who feel they can't be trusted to make their own decisions about their body. The ones who believe that one size fits all when it comes to health care and that ones size just happens to be their size.

[cgrindley]

78. The whole thing about a good socialized system is that you CAN'T

go running to the doctor for every little thing. That's one of the huge problems with the states. People go to the doctor too frequently, have a host of made up diseases, take way too many pointless medications, and suck the life out of the system in a pointless quest for 3 more months of life when they're in their late 70's. Enough's enough.

Make everyone get the right check ups. Encourage health. Tell the unhealthy to shape up. Wean people off all their pointless medications, and tell people that everyone eventually dies.

I'm liking this.

[supernova]

55. Precisely my point

Certain segments of our society already have mandatory checkups. People are bitching because they've never had to consider the possiblity that they would be included too.

[BlackVelvet04]

97. And those segments have a choice.....

what the hell is wrong with people that they are willing to lay themselves on the alter of government regulations and be stripped naked both literally and figuratively. You honestly trust THIS government to keep your information confidential? You trust them to demand you go to a doctor?
If so you need an operation to get your head out your ass.

[StarryNite]

182. I could understand the mandatory

checkups being accepted by the right wingers. They always want to tell us what we should do with our own bodies. But this attitude sure does surprise me coming from my own party which normally speaks of getting government out of our bedrooms and bodies.

[BlackVelvet04]

190. It seems there are

authoritarians on both sides.

[AnotherGreenWorld]

174. Oh, is that why we're "bitching"?

:eyes:

[tired_old_fireman]

81. I think you're onto something

I take mandatory physical exams for work so it doesn't seem like such a big deal to me.

[smoogatz]

279. Not if it's mandatory.

There's nothing standard about that. Sorry. "What's so special about those who think they can opt out?" Jeebus. Suddenly the Edwards supporters go all authoritarian on us. What's "special" is that mandatory doctor visits are a stupid, intrusive idea that puts the "Nanny-stater" label squarely on Edwards's back. Lots of luck with that.

[Warpy]

9. "Hunh! Nobody gonna tell ME what to do!"

That's what's wrong with them, the macho mindset that resists everything that isn't part of the theology of the rugged individual, the king of his castle, the captain of his life.

Yeah, I know, it's not all men. However, it's mostly men.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

17. Yep. But it's only individualism and liberty for themselves

Your typical macho libertarian has no problem with women and minorities having their freedom abridged. A surprising number of libertarians are anti-abortion and most have no problem with things like racial profiling.

[Warren DeMontague]

177. Uh huh. It's "Mostly Men" who have these crazy ideas about soveriegnity over their own bodies.

:eyes:

Right. I can't imagine why women, for instance, would be interested in the notion of being able to make her own decisions about her own body. Nope. Can't fucking fathom it.

Actually, what I can't fathom is why the idea of certain other people standing up for their own right to control their own bodies is so seemingly irksome to anyone who would claim to be "pro-choice".

[mrreowwr_kittty]

304. Trust me they will take my reproductive rights away LONG before they take your porn

The dudes who run everything like it too much.

[Warren DeMontague]

318. Who brought up porn?

Well, since you did, here's a crazy idea: Maybe if people could wrap their heads around articulating an across the board principle of getting government the fuck OUT of the bodies, bloodstreams and bedrooms of ALL consenting adults, we could all protect each other's personal space. What a concept!

Actually, surprisingly enough, despite my "me-me-me" socially darwinian macho male outlook, desptite the fact that I don't personally have a uterus, I still flew 3,000 miles to march in DC in April of '04 for reproductive choice. Even though I'm not gay, I'm positively unafuckingpologetic that NOW- not never, not later- is the time for full marriage equality for my GLBT brothers and sisters.

Yet, because I won't gleefully sign on to censorship, judgment or endless dworkinite (you did bring up porn, didn't you?) second-guessing of certain choices made by consenting adults that happen to be unapproved by the Smith College Womens' Studies Dept, or because I support the right of personal bodily self-determination for everyone, including adult film stars, pot smokers and even all them evil mens, I'm one of those endlessly irritating "looneytarians" :crazy:

And you know I'm only on about any of this shit because I'm really just a "Republican who smokes pot" and I'm "worried someone is coming to take my porno away."

What someone needs to do is make a list of the choices consenting adults might make that we as good little progressives are permitted to support, and a list of the ones which are unacceptable.

(Women controlling their own bodies in the context of reproductive choice- okay. Women controlling their own bodies in the context of taking their clothes off in front of a camera- not okay. Men controlling their own bodies in any context AT ALL- clearly, not okay)

Then we'll all know that when people say they're pro-choice, we know they're not talking about letting anyone make any unauthorized choices!

[BlackVelvet04]

21. People are asking for

affordable insurance and medical care.....they aren't asking for the government to be mommy and tell them they have to go to the doctor. If you don't have a problem with being told that you as an adult can't make up your own mind about if and when to see a doctor then hire a personal mommy to take care of you.

[Crunchy Frog]

41. Apparently alot of people here think you can't have one without the other.

I'm always surprised to see what an authoritarian streak there is at DU sometimes.

I'm curious as to whether other countries with universal healthcare have such an element of coercion to them, or if this authoritarian mindset is just an American thing.

[BlackVelvet04]

89. But those of us who don't buy into the

authoritarian streak are macho babies???? How does that work?

There's a lot of stupid people in this world who will follow the crowd over the cliff.

[CTyankee]

92. My brother, a lifelong Republican, believed that. At age 67 he died suddenly

having been rushed from his nursing home, where he was incontinent and in diapers, to the hospital for urgent care for his 3rd and fatal stroke (which was inevitable given his heavy smoking). He was by then a Medicaid patient in a nursing home. He had been an alcoholic who couldn't hold down a job and lived with my mother until his second, incapacitating stroke.

I wish that kind of illness and death on no one. But hey, he did it "his way," to paraphrase Frank Sinatra. I didn't have a chance to say goodbye because I was in CT and he was in Texas. My mother, 93 at the time, just gave up when he died. She fell and broke her arm. I took frequent flights to be with her for seven months. She gave up eating and finally died.

[Nutmegger]

253. I'm so sorry.

:hug:

[CTyankee]

254. Thanks. My point wasn't to beg for sympathy but to show the ultimate

outcome of not having access to health care for all. I had tried to get health care for my brother before the strokes. His only income was his Social Security, which I helped him enroll for. Then we learned that it was just a little too much money for him to qualify for Medicaid. Only when he had the second stroke and was incapacitated, were we able to get him in a nursing home on a Medicaid waiver. And that was only due to some string pulling by a family member. I was flying from Bradley to DFW every 3 months or so. I retired from my full time job and took a part time job so I could help my brother and mother. I was the last one standing in my immediate family and that was that.

[Warren DeMontague]

163. What if the mandatory doctor visit comes with a mandatory piss test/hair analysis for drug use or

other "socially undesirable" activities, like having sex with multiple partners, etc.

What if the religious right are running the show, and they're checking for same-sex activity?

What if they succeed in outlawing abortion and birth control- you still gonna want to be forced to go to a doctor pre-screened by the Jesus Jihadis? The Republicans want to institute, essentially, a federal Uterus police. You're sure you can't fathom why anyone might be suspicious, the way things stand, of the feds mandating a whole bunch of poking around in citizens' cavities and bloodstreams?

Perhaps the reason so many people (mostly men, apparently :eyes:) in this society are reflexively wary of government sponsored encroachments on our personal freedom is because there are so fucking many of them. We spend $40 Billion a year to keep consenting adults from smoking a relatively benign plant, and well before the War on Terror completed the demolition of civil liberties and the Bill of Rights, the "war on drugs" got it started.

I think as part of any Single Payer Health Care system, regular doctor visits and preventative medicine would be an important part.

But frankly, for any of this shit to work, certain authoritarian types on both sides of the ideological spectrum (wink-wink-nudge-nudge), are also going to need to let go of their mindset that seemingly gives them this irrepressible urge to micro-manage the behavior of other consenting adults. :shrug:

[LSK]

285. what if aliens came and zapped my city

:eyes:

[Warren DeMontague]

286. Right.

I just love how some people get all snippy and pissy about other people's pesky insistence on controlling their own bodies. "But don't fuck with MY business!"

:eyes:, yourself.

[LSK]

287. nobody is telling you what to do with your body

But enjoy your strawman.

PS: Care to show me this mandatory doctor stuff here? http://johnedwards.com/issues/health-care

[Warren DeMontague]

288. I'm not ripping on Edwards. I'm responding to a poster who claimed that ANY wariness

to any sort of government-mandated intrusion into the bodies of citizens' constitutes some kind of grunting, "macho libertarianism". If you look at my other posts, you'll see that not only do I enthusiastically support a SPHC system (does Edwards?) I also think regular dr. visits and preventative care would be a sensible part of that.

But given that we, as a nation, currently spend $40 Billion a year to keep Willie Nelson and assorted cancer grannies from smoking a relatively benign plant, I think saying that government-as-it-stands ought to reevaluate its self justification for telling consenting adults what they can or can't do with their own bodies before we start talking about mandatory dr. visits- even if that's not what Edwards has said.

Get it?

[LSK]

289. I saw John Edwards on CSPAN being asked about that plant

and he was open to revising the laws regarding it.

And here is the what the Edwards website says about Check Ups:

"(2) Invest in Preventive Care and Health. Study after study shows that primary and preventive care
greatly reduces future health care costs, as well as increasing patients’ health, but our health care
system is focused on treating diseases, not preventing them. Insurance companies have little incentive
to bear these costs. As a result, many people do not receive preventive care such as tests and
immunizations. Other Americans suffer from preventable, chronic conditions that can lead to
complications and disability. Edwards will help Health Care Markets lead the effort to realign
incentives in the health care system that reward healthier outcomes and lower costs.

• Promote Preventive Care: Health Care Markets will offer primary and preventive services at
little or no cost. Incentives like lower premiums will reward individuals who schedule free
physicals and enroll in healthy living programs. Edwards will also support community efforts to
improve health, such as safe streets, walking and biking trails, safe and well-equipped parks, and
physical education programs for children."

[Warren DeMontague]

290. You want to know the one thing that's keeping me from voting for Edwards right now? It's not this.

It was the answer he gave on Gay Marriage a few weeks ago. I understand that it reflects political reality, but I'm tired of pandering to bigots, control freaks and the backwards-ass. Up until that point I was all set to vote for him. I still may, if he's within striking distance in California, but right now Kucinich has my vote.

[LSK]

291. for what its worth, I think Elizabeth is open to it

[Warren DeMontague]

294. I know. I liked her answer.

We'll see. I haven't written him off entirely. Like I said- if it seems like he has a real shot in CA, I'd prefer it be him than HRC or Obama.

[Richard D]

10. Another viewpoint

Many of you are probably confused as to why someone would want to avoid a seemingly benign visit to the doctor which is designed only to detect the beginnings of disease before it really gets out of hand. There are a number of reasons, the first of which is to simply avoid the aggravation of having to argue with the doctor at every turn. I do not espouse the same view of disease and healing the the doctor does, therefore his or her assessment of my condition and recommendations of treatment usually do not coincide with mine. So why would I go in the first place?

According to Dr. Robert S. Mendelsohn, M.D. in his landmark book, "Male Practice: How Doctors Manipulate Women", "That may sound contradictory if Modern Medicine has convinced you that regular visits to the doctor's office are vital way stations on the road to a long and rewarding life. Believe me, they're not. The door to the doctor's office ought to bear a surgeon general's warning that routine physical examinations are dangerous to your health. Why? Because doctors do not see themselves as guardians of health, and they have learned precious little about how to assure it. Instead, they are latter-day Don Quixotes, battling sometimes real but too often imaginary diseases. The disastrous difference is that doctors are not tilting at windmills. Rather, it is people who are damaged by their insistent search for dubious diseases to conquer" (p. 1).

"There is no limit to the ingenuity of Modern Medicine in diagnosing diseases--or non-diseases--that it can treat. Doctors have been taught to seek, find, and treat illness, not to help you maintain good health. Consequently, when you visit your doctor for a routine physical checkup, it doesn't make much difference how healthy you are or how good you feel. Your naked and defenseless presence in his examining room is an open invitation to the doctor to declare that you are sick. By the time you've been psychologically traumatized by his questions, poking, prodding, and testing, and you have taken a few of the pills he prescribes for the innocuous aberrances he has found, you may very well experience so many side effects that you really are sick" (p.2).

Remember, this is a medical doctor saying this, telling us just exactly how useless and even dangerous yearly medical checkups can be.

more: http://www.unhinderedliving.com/yearlycheckup.html

[EFerrari]

12. But isn't that the point at which individual judgment comes into play?

Personally, I don't consider a doctor to be some kind of authority. S/He is my helper, works for me just as anyone I hire does. So, I go in for a check up and am handed an assessment. It's my choice what happens after that. :shrug:

On the other hand, I have many years of (costly and often traumatic) experience dealing with our dysfunctional mental health system -- where the ability to dig your heels in and say, "No" is more or less a prerequisite for survival, let alone obtaining appropriate care.

[supernova]

24. Totally agree with you

I'm perfectly capable of discussing my healthcare with my doctor on a professional level. I am also free to choose refuse treatements/tests I deem unnecessary or too invasive.

You're only at the doctor's mercy if 1) s/he is unscrupulous to begin with (and that happens now) 2) You don't know enough about your own health.

[AnotherGreenWorld]

33. (1) describes too many American doctors today.

Doctors very often don't tell you all your options. And if you are in the hospital doped up on drugs, what are you supposed to do? They tell you to take a drug, you take it.

Doctors will also lie right to your face about the potential side-effects of drugs. In my experience, it's standard procedure.

[supernova]

39. I haven't had that experience

But then again, I'm used to a big university research and teaching hospital. Docs aren't gods, they're just people and I feel perfectly fine disagreeing when I have to.

Still, that's no reason not to enact universal healthcare. The system we have now is untenable.

[AnotherGreenWorld]

44. I support universal healthcare, just not Edwards's plan.

You might be fine disagreeing with them. But if you were hospitalized, had no idea what was going on, told you were going to die, and doped up on painkillers that you don't know what's going on and can't think critically, the doctors put you a handful of drugs without you even knowing, what are you going do?

Doctors in general don't care about you at all. They want money and prestige. That's why they're doctors.

Doctors aren't gods. But many of them think they are. They kill approximately 100,000 people every year--the same rate as the genocide in Darfur--and the vast majority get away with it, and continue to live their lives making hundreds of thousands of dollars every year.

[StarryNite]

49. They are also in bed with big pharma.

They get all kinds of goodies for prescribing pills. Just look around the next time you are in a doctor's office. Everything in the damn place is an ad for some pill. But of course it's the big perks like vacations that are so highly coveted. Sometimes doctors make me ill.

[AnotherGreenWorld]

54. Yep.

Last year I had a 9:30 appointment with my doctor. Because it's a long drive, I had to wake up at 5AM. So I get there, and after 30 minutes, I am transferred to wait in a different room. 30 minutes later the doctor comes in. He doesn't apologize for the wait. He walks right by me, without saying a word, picks up the phone, and talks for about 10 minutes. Then he goes back to the hall talking to the pharmaceutical rep. Later, after likely being compensated for promoting the pharmaceutical rep's drugs, I finally did see the doctor. It was less than five minutes. He was in a hurry. But he did want me to go back on a drug that I had just stopped taking because, among other things, I was allergic to it.

[Beausoir]

281. You are incorrect. It is illegal to accept vacations, gifts, tickets to sporting events, etc.

You are just plain misinformed.

[StarryNite]

297. And if you think it doesn't happen

then you are naive.

[supernova]

51. A few things

1) If I think a doc I'm working with is that unscrupulous, then it's time to find a new doc. And the time to do that is way before I become incapcitated. There are good ones out there, but you have to find them. And I can usually tell who's the one who genuinely enjoys patients and who's just logging frequent flyer miles (In too much of a hurry, doesn't listen, generally doesn't think I know what I'm talking about. That doc gets a bye bye from me, I don't care if s/he is the dept head.)

2) If I'm so incapcitated, then it's time to enact a health care power of attorney. It's a legal document your laywer draws up and you sign, appointing someone else to make decisions for you. Typcially this is your SO or another family member to whom you are close. But it could be anybody you designate. Again this is something to be done ahead of time. It's not something that can wait til the last minute.

It sounds like you have been badly treated. That's a shame, but again that's no reason to hold back the rest of us. And as for "mandatory" checkups, there is probably a happy middle between "every year" and some specified statistic.

Bottom line: You and I have profound disagreements about what good healthcare really means.

[AnotherGreenWorld]

58. ...

1) If you are hospitalized, you do not choose your doctors.

2) Doctors have a certain authority. When I was in the hospital my family members assumed my doctors knew what they were talking about, had my best interest in mind, and so on.

There's not much you can do about bad doctors, and, yes, they are fairly common. You just don't notice them until something serious happens. Yes, most doctors can handle patients who come in with a cold. (Well, actually, the typical result--an anti-biotic--probably isn't that wise of a choice. But at least they don't greatly harm the patient.) But that's the sort of thing you could wait out, or if you don't know that drinking lots of fluid helps, ask your garbage man. He'll give you the same advice as your doctor would, and he won't charge you.

It's really too bad we don't have higher standards in this country. I think it would be not just more helpful but more politically expedient if Edwards--especially considering his background--would spend more time talking about doing something about medical malpractice than talking about things of this sort that, if he were the nominee, would assure his defeat in the general election.

[supernova]

66. You're not understanding

I'm saying there is a way around those things you think are problems, but you seem to think are insurmountable. My way takes a lot of homework and self-knowledge, but again it's not impossible.

Go live in a cave if you want, just leave me the competent folks. And I will use them in conjuction with whatever home remedies I like.

[AnotherGreenWorld]

70. You're not understanding.

If something serious happened to you, and you ended up in the ER, you would not choose your doctors. Doing homework and having self-knowledge have nothing to do with it.

:eyes:

In addition, when something serious does happen, a doctor you might have previously thought competent might turn out to be completely unqualified and make your situation worse.

[supernova]

143. Actually, yes I do

the patient is always in control. If I don't like the attending on the ward, i can insist on another attending to take my case. Or I can insist on being moved to a different ward or hospital. There is not such thing as just lying there and taking it.

Well, maybe for you.

[AnotherGreenWorld]

149. You are really dense.

If you are in the ER, told--wrongly--that you are going to die, put on morphine, and so on and so on, and you have no reason at that time to think your doctors are doing anything but what doctors should be doing, why on earth would you leave?

It is not until later that you discover what your doctors did to you.

This is a problem of regulation and accountability. Doctors, as a matter of procedure, cover up malpractice, cover for other doctors who malpractice, and rarely are held accountable. If the average murderer were more foresighted, he/she would become a doctor.

The patient is always in control? That sounds a lot like the consumers are always in control rhetoric I read in the Wall Street Journal. If people don't want poisonous toothpaste, they won't buy it, right? And anyone who buys poisonous toothpaste is just an stupid asshole who thinks poison makes teeth whiter? If there's poisonous toothpaste out there, hey, there must be a market for it. Otherwise, the free market would fix it for all for us!

[supernova]

156. No, I am not dense

I am however more familiar with the healthcare system than is normal. Both because of my history and because I worked inside it.

And no, it's not at all like the chinese toothepast scenario. Geez, so why aren't you out there being a patient advocate, lobbying for better information rather than saying we shouldn't use the HC system at all because it's all corrupt and downhill anyway.

You're a depression looking for somebody to land on. I'm sure you can make better use of your time.

[uppityperson]

210. "If the average murderer were more foresighted, he/she would become a doctor. "?

wow. tell us more. please.

[AnotherGreenWorld]

223. Doctors not only get away with killing people, they keep

their job making hundreds of thousands of dollars every year, and are regarded as philanthropists.

What more must be said? What murderer wouldn't love that?

[uppityperson]

224. Did you know there are a hell of a lot of doctors who do not make hundreds of thousands/yr?

For any who make that much, and yes there are some, there are many more who don't. I think you must be talking about lawyers, your expertise, and misspelling it as "doctor"

[Ms. Toad]

189. You have had very different experiences than mine

The three physicians my family and I rely on most (on an ongoing basis) are ones we picked up as a result of a visit to the ER.

My family knows to ask lots of questions of physicians, and to refuse treatment/tests when it is not appropriate (we have done so for two of the three of us), to request a different physician if the one assigned is not treating us appropriately (we have done so for one of us). It is not necessarily the most comfortable thing in the world to do - but we have a lot healthier relationships with doctors as a result. No one in our family - including the 15 year old with a chronic illness - treats physicians as authority figures.

Mu health is my responsibility, ultimately. Regardless of what any physician tells me, I do my own research to make sure I agree with the proposed treatment (for me or anyone else in my family). If I don't agree, the treatment doesn't go forward until I have a satisfactory explanation or a different treatment plan. When I can't do the research myself, my family members know to (and have done) it for me until I am recovered enough to take over myself.

[AnotherGreenWorld]

211. It's good that you have family members skeptical of doctors.

I didn't and don't. I bet most Americans don't. And I bet most Americans themselves aren't very skeptical, thinking doctors are geniuses who want to help people.

Regardless, the doctors who commit medical malpractice need to be held accountable. Right now, most are not.

[uppityperson]

212. Of course drs that commit medical malpractice need to be held accountable, so do lawyers that do

unethical lawyering, and people working with kids who abuse them, and everyone else who fucks up in their job needs to be held accountable. Most doctors do want to help people.

[AnotherGreenWorld]

215. You don't know that.

And the statistics don't bear it out. If doctors do want to help people, then most are simply incompetent.

And if so, they should care enough to spare us all the trouble by never becoming doctors.

And regardless, their psychological state is irrelevant. They fuck up far too much. The bad ones should be smart enough to leave the profession or never become doctors in the first place. Do I need to say it again? Medical doctors kill approximately 100,000 people each year, a rate that would make a genocidal tyrant jealous.

And the fact is: Most doctors who malpractice are not held accountable.

[uppityperson]

222. Doctors who want to help people are mostly incompetent. Wild.

You keep stating that number, and all you posted as proof is a link to a book review and clip saying that.

[AnotherGreenWorld]

225. If you think that's a book review, you really need to work on reading comprehension.

If doctors want to help people but aren't, there must be an explanation for it. They obviously aren't very good at helping people, or do you think people want to be killed and have their lives ruined?

[uppityperson]

227. Guess you didn't look at your own link, or maybe you missed the reviews

or maybe you just like to play devils advocate.

[AnotherGreenWorld]

228. Look again.

http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/036480.html

That is an excerpt. Do you know what that is?


"Copyright notice: Excerpt from pages 1-14 of The Medical Malpractice Myth by Tom Baker, published by the University of Chicago Press. ©2005 by the University of Chicago. All rights reserved. This text may be used and shared in accordance with the fair-use provisions of U.S. copyright law, and it may be archived and redistributed in electronic form, provided that this entire notice, including copyright information, is carried and provided that the University of Chicago Press is notified and no fee is charged for access. Archiving, redistribution, or republication of this text on other terms, in any medium, requires the consent of the University of Chicago Press. (Footnotes and other references included in the book may have been removed from this online version of the text.)"

[uppityperson]

229. Look again.

What do you call these? I call them reviews.

“Having worked with insurance companies, law firms and doctors, Baker brings experience and perspective to his book, which is sure to be important and controversial in future debates.”
—Publishers Weekly

“Citing major studies mostly from medical and legal literature, he debunks a litany of perceived myths around malpractice lawsuits and convincingly makes the case that malpractice lawsuits actually improve patient care and that big payments are the rare exception, not the rule.…Well researched with more than ten pages of references, Baker’s timely book is appropriate for public, medical, and academic libraries.”
—Library Journal

“Finally someone has demonstrated how complex this challenge really is. Narrow, facile answers won’t solve the problem.”
—Senator Richard J. Durbin

[AnotherGreenWorld]

232. Those are on the side of the page.

The rest of the text--the first 14 pages of The Medical Malpractice Myth--really should be there. And I did include the relevant paragraph in a previous post.

[uppityperson]

233. "If you think that's a book review, you really need to work on reading comprehension." Yup.

You insult me with "If you think that's a book review, you really need to work on reading comprehension." Those are reviews.S o what if they are on the side of the page, they are reviews and you are an insulting poster.

No link to research other than this book. Bye.

[AnotherGreenWorld]

235. The reviews are not the primary text of the page. That's really dishonest.

It's obviously not a book review. Come on.

It's the first 14 pages of a book published by the University of Chicago Press.

[uppityperson]

240. You give me a link with a book clip and reviews on it. The reviews are there. On that web page.

Now you say they "are not the primary text of the page" so I'm dishonest? bwahahahahaha. You provided the link. I said there was a clip and reviews. You insulted me. I show the reviews on the page of the link you gave and you call me dishonest? bwahahahahahaha

How about "oh, I missed those, that's not what I meant" rather than insulting me? Eh?

[AnotherGreenWorld]

242. Do you know what a book review is?

Have you ever read a book? Books commonly have snippets from people on the back cover.

“Having worked with insurance companies, law firms and doctors, Baker brings experience and perspective to his book, which is sure to be important and controversial in future debates.”
—Publishers Weekly

“Citing major studies mostly from medical and legal literature, he debunks a litany of perceived myths around malpractice lawsuits and convincingly makes the case that malpractice lawsuits actually improve patient care and that big payments are the rare exception, not the rule.…Well researched with more than ten pages of references, Baker’s timely book is appropriate for public, medical, and academic libraries.”
—Library Journal

“Finally someone has demonstrated how complex this challenge really is. Narrow, facile answers won’t solve the problem.”
—Senator Richard J. Durbin

That does not constitute a book review.

[likesmountains 52]

236. ok, AGW..how many doctor-patient interactions are there per day in the US? Any what % are what you

classify as malpractice? I am sure that there are bad doctors, cops, teaches and lawyers out there but why are you so adamant that "most" MDs are bad?

[AnotherGreenWorld]

238. Even if most MDs weren't incompetent, careless or both, there are clearly too many bad MDs.

That shouldn't be controversial.

[uppityperson]

241. Of course THAT is not controversial. What is is your broadbrush insulting all doctors

1 bad MD is too many. What you are doing though is broadbrush insulting ALL MDs.

[AnotherGreenWorld]

243. It's entirely justified, though I haven't went to the trouble of citing research here.

I'm sure it would be ignored anyway, maybe even dishonestly referred to as a book review.

Even MDs who don't malpractice cover up the malpractice of other MDs. That's standard procedure.

[uppityperson]

245. Broadbrush insulting ALL doctors is justified? And citing NO source is ok?

You won't give a source for your allegations("haven't gone" is proper grammar) of your attack on doctors because it would be ignored. Aha. So, we should believe you....just because? An anonymous poster who won't cite any source out of fear it will be ignored (or fear I might point out the reviews on the web page given).

[AnotherGreenWorld]

246. You've ignored the other citation.

Why should I bother to document the well-known fact that MDs cover-up the malpractice of other MDs?

It really doesn't bother me if anyone believes me or not. I'm just putting my two cents into the discussion. I think doctors are generally incompetent and careless. If people want to hold onto a more noble view of doctors, that's fine. It's probably not in their best interest though.

[uppityperson]

99. Doctors in general don't care about you, only want money &prestige?That's why they're doctors???

That is an incredibly insulting broadbrush statement. Yes, there are some who are that way, but "doctors in general"? No way.

[AnotherGreenWorld]

102. No way?

Obviously I can't prove the statement. I don't think a reasonable person would think it's that far-fetched though. As pervasive as medical malpractice is, it's clear that carelessness pervades the profession.

I know that a lot of doctors are rather childish. Perhaps many become doctors because they lack will-power and their parents make them?

[uppityperson]

108. Wow, another nasty broad brush post against doctors.

I feel sorry for you, for obviously you have issues with medical/health care providers. Or perhaps you have only had contact with some negative ones. You can't prove that statement, but imply I am unreasonable for questioning you. There are many reasons for medical malpractice, from the incompetent to the competent but overworked doctors to the unscrupulous doctors and patients and lawyers. This does not prove that "carelessness pervades the profession" at all. You "know" that a lot of doctors are rather childish and perhaps are doctors only because they lack will-power (perhaps to go through the intense training? What will-power do they lack?) and because mommy/daddy made them.

Oh. my. god. You are incredible.

[AnotherGreenWorld]

114. That is really quite dumb.

Lawyers are not a reason for medical malpractice. You sound like Rush or O'Reilly.

Yes, I have only had contact with bad doctors, and now I have stopped going to doctors completely, realizing that doctors not only waste time and money, they create more problems than they fix. And I am better for it.

[uppityperson]

117. Hahahahahahahahaha. You MUST be a lawyer. Right?

"Lawyers are not a reason for medical malpractice."
:rofl: :eyes: :puke:

[AnotherGreenWorld]

120. Yep, it's those evil trial lawyers who

force surgeons to operate while drunk. It's evil trial lawyers who force a daydreaming doctor to write the wrong dosage on a prescription. It's evil trial lawyers who make doctors kill 100,000 people each year. :eyes:

[uppityperson]

121. Where is that number from? Link to reputable source please. I knew you were a lawyer.

Ain't no such thing as an unscrupulous lawyer. Got it. So, where is that number you keep quoting from?

[AnotherGreenWorld]

122. The Medical Malpractice Myth published by University of Chicago Press.

[uppityperson]

124. A book. OK. How about something that is provable?

No, I'm not going out to buy a book and read it, hoping to find your statistic. How about a good source, like where did the author of your book get it from? Must be somewhere. If you are going to continue to throw this number around, need a valid source, not just a pop-book.

[AnotherGreenWorld]

138. It's a scholarly work, not a "pop-book."

Here's a link to an excerpt:

http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/036480.html

"Throughout the medical malpractice crisis, leading newspapers carried accounts of other obvious medical mistakes. Like the L.A. Times piece on Jesica and Jeanella, the accounts often linked the particular mistakes to the larger story about the extent of medical malpractice in U.S. health care. The report by the Institute of Medicine of the National Academy of Science, To Err Is Human, was a common source. That report summarized research showing that nearly 100,000 people die in the United States each year from medical mistakes—more than die from automobile and workplace accidents combined.

Because of that research and reporting, public opinion is coming around to the view that, distressingly, Jesica’s and Jeanella’s problems are not unique; our health care system has a serious medical-injury problem. But at the same time, public opinion remains firmly anchored to the view that we have an explosion of what President George W. Bush calls “junk lawsuits” and that medical malpractice lawsuits contribute significantly to the high cost of health care in the United States."

[uppityperson]

206. Let me try again, cutting out the offending word.

Thank you for the link to that book, it sounds interesting but I would need to read it to decide its accuracy, or have information as to the source of its statistics.

No, I'm not going out to buy a book and read it, hoping to find your statistic. How about a good source, like where did the author of your book get it from? Must be somewhere. If you are going to continue to throw this number around, need a valid source.

[AnotherGreenWorld]

216. I already provided a link.

University of Chicago not prestigious enough for you?

[uppityperson]

220. You provided a link to a review, clip from book. That is all.

[AnotherGreenWorld]

230. It is the first 14 pages of the book.

:eyes:

[uppityperson]

231. So I guess all you have to back up that oft quoted number is this book.

No research backing it up. Just the first 14 pages of this book. Ah. Bye.

[AnotherGreenWorld]

234. Yet again...

"Throughout the medical malpractice crisis, leading newspapers carried accounts of other obvious medical mistakes. Like the L.A. Times piece on Jesica and Jeanella, the accounts often linked the particular mistakes to the larger story about the extent of medical malpractice in U.S. health care. The report by the Institute of Medicine of the National Academy of Science, To Err Is Human, was a common source. That report summarized research showing that nearly 100,000 people die in the United States each year from medical mistakes—more than die from automobile and workplace accidents combined."

http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/036480.html

Full report available here:
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?isbn=0309068371

[iverglas]

134. lack of will power explains all of everyone's problems, doncha know?

It's all just mind over matter. If people weren't stupid and unworthy, they wouldn't be fat. Or doctors. Go figure.

[AnotherGreenWorld]

144. When I say,

Maybe doctors lack will-power and only become doctors because their parents made them, I am referring to another thread. I obviously don't think that explains why most doctors choose a career in medicine. I am quite sure most choose it because of the money and prestige associated with the profession.

[iverglas]

150. uh huh; and when you say that people in France and New Zealand

are not obese/overweight in problematic proportions (one must assume: because they have more will power than USAmericans), you're making a false statement.

Haven't seen you addressing the disproof of that statement, which you made over and over and over, that I've posted twice now, though.

Strikes me you'll say pretty much whatever's handy and would bolster whatever agenda you're attempting to advance, is how it strikes me.

Not quite sure what that agenda might be, other than to blame everybody for his/her own problems and object to any concerted public effort to address said problems at a societal level. I'm never sure; is that the "liberal" thing to do?

Meanwhile, here we have yet another thread in which you seem to have decided that the actual subject matter is not worthy of your attention, and you'd rather everybody discuss something else.

In this particular case, you'd have a point; the actual subject matter really isn't worthy of anybody's attention, since it looks like, at worst, a silly slip of someone's tongue and/or a questionable paraphrase by a journalist of something someone said, with a lot of people jumping at the chance to pretend to believe as many absurd and really horrible things about John Edwards before breakfast as possible. (See my posts at the bottom of the thread, anyone who's interested.)

Nonetheless, all I'm seeing you doing, again, is blithering about irrelevancies.

I don't use the ignore function, myself, but I really would recommend that we all start using the self-restraint function when we see the irrelevant blithering.

[AnotherGreenWorld]

153. Threads digress. That's fairly common.

[uppityperson]

204. You strongly state that opinion and now say you are referencing another thread?

Why post such a strongly worded thing here, in this thread then?

[AnotherGreenWorld]

217. Why make references to anything?

That's really what you're asking.

[uppityperson]

221. Forum posting 101

If you reply to a post, it is in reference to the post you reply to. Posting a strongly held personal opinion broadbrushing a group, then saying "oh, it was about something else" don't fly.

[AnotherGreenWorld]

237. ...

:eyes:

[Beausoir]

130. That's in the running for the silliest post I've seen on DU in 5 years.

Doctors are only doctors because their parents force them to be doctors?

:crazy:

[uppityperson]

131. And they lack will-power.

:crazy:

[likesmountains 52]

139. Not to mention they are mostly "unqualified, incompetent and generally dumb."..from another thread..

[AnotherGreenWorld]

155. You should get the reference if you've read that thread.

[uppityperson]

207. Did this poster really say that about doctors? whew.

[AnotherGreenWorld]

154. You don't get the reference. Don't worry about it.

[uppityperson]

208. We don't get the reference for a broadbrush insult, so don't worry about it?

hahahahahahaha

[AnotherGreenWorld]

213. People who haven't heard Beethoven's "Hammerklavier" sonata

shouldn't worry about not understanding Boulez's 2nd sonata.

If you haven't read the post to which I'm referring, you won't understand the comment in question. Don't worry about it.

[uppityperson]

214. People who broadbrush insult and try to condesendingly pass it off?

How about explaining that all? Or else we not only understand that you insult doctors, but us too.

[AnotherGreenWorld]

218. It was a not-so-subtle reference to a poster in a thread about college loans.

Calm down.

[uppityperson]

226. Carrying a flame war to another thread to continuing insulting here is not a good idea.

[AnotherGreenWorld]

239. It wasn't a "flame war."

:eyes:

[renie408]

296. Always remember..."Ignore" is your friend. n/t

[uppityperson]

316. Yeah, sometimes it is worth it, sometimes not.

[BlackVelvet04]

15. Have you read the book

"The Medical Heretic"? It pretty much says it all for me. (It's written by a doctor.)

[niyad]

67. all one has to do is look at the list of "illnesses" ascribed to menopause--and the oh-so-convenient

drugs that they just happen to have available for treating this "disease"

[rodeodance]

272. In many ways I agree with him-yet, for me, the benefits outweigh this.

[WindRavenX]

11. my solution: just opt out if you don't want to deal with regular health care

I think that's fair to the people who feel threatened by regular health care. Don't want to deal with it, then opt out.

[supernova]

19. I was thinking similar

people who have problems with the health care system, or doctors in general, shouldn't participate anyway. They aren't really ready for universal healthcare.

[WindRavenX]

25. and look, i hate going to dentists, doctos, as much as anyone. Especially because I'm overweight.

But the whole fucking point of a decent health care is to PREVENT and TREAT things before they become terminal or chronic--regular checkups ensure that.

[supernova]

27. totally agree with you

and I would gladly avoid the yearly grope up my ass if they sold BC OTC, but they don't so I have to.

[Balbus]

37. Yeah, and for those people that opt out...

Other people will set up private doctor offices, with private doctors, with private hospitals which will lead to private insurance companies, all of which will offer the very best service and care - if you have the money. So the rich people will "opt" out of the government plan and get the best (again.)

Isn't that what we sort of have now?

[WindRavenX]

45. I would answer no

I have no insurance. The idea of being able to go to the doctor, dentist (twice), AND eye doctor in the same year and be able to afford it would make me beyond happy because I take my health very seriously. The rich can access health care whenever they please to whomever they want. Preventative health care isn't necessarily a requirement for them because they can afford to enter the health system whenever they please--be it preventative or at a late stage. Care at a latter stage is without exception almost always more expensive to treat or cure. But I can't afford even preventative care.

Now, then:

My issue lies in the "requirement" of somewhat regular checkups with your doctor--that's the entire crux of universal health care to PREVENT huge health issues before they become chronic. You can't do preventative health care by not going at least at somewhat regular intervals. If people have issues with going to doctors for whatever reason, they're going to cost more in the long run because they're the ones that are treated for later stages ailments.

I don't think regular physicals every 3 years at the max is unreasonable. It should be every year, but if people hate going to the doctor (as do I), I think some leeway is fine. But I don't think it's unreasonable, or even healthy at all, to encourage people to not go for routine basic screenings for cholestorel, BP, cancer screens, etc. I think people are overreacting entirely to the notion that this is some grand conspiracy to keep people in line.

[Retired AF Dem]

65. If I opt out will I have to still pay

the tax hikes to support it?

[WindRavenX]

71. i think it's fair that if you opt out, you pay more into the system

Not a TON , but enough to offside the cost of later stage care...

[Retired AF Dem]

140. Most of the people on this board have never

lived under the system of universal health care. I didn't like paying 44% income tax while working for a German Company in Germany. Most people on this board couldn't afford the taxes though universal health care sounds so grand. I would much rather see some sort of affordable health care insurance.

[supernova]

145. I want private insurers GONE

I want the private insuranace industry in the US to be reduced to arguing with a CEO if his latestly trophy wife will get those double DDs he's been wanting, not wether or not I get an ECG to see if my heart is still in good shape.

[Retired AF Dem]

146. Did I say Private Insurance?

[supernova]

160. That's what it sounds like

so what exactly did you mean? Something like the canadian system?

[iverglas]

179. I know exactly what you're saying

and as your good neighbour, I want it gone for you, too. I would even if I didn't have an interest in having the private health insurance industry in the US gutted -- which I do, because it is the major force behind attempts to re-privatize the Cdn health insurance system.

But I understand the need for incrementalism. How it worked here in Canada was that it started in one province, and it spread. You down there are working against such a monster, in the form of the insurance industry, that it probably couldn't be done that way. Nonetheless, you probably have to remember that universal single public-payer health care wasn't built in a day up here or anywhere else, and consider how unlikely that is to happen nation-wide in the US today. Here, it started in that one province, and then it started nationally with hospital insurance, and then it was the first draft, which allowed doctors to opt out and extra-bill so there was some degree of parallel private system, and finally it became what it is.

All expert opinion world-wide is that allowing a private tier to infiltrate a universal public health insurance system is the beginning of the end of the public system. But putting a parallel universally-accessible public tier into what is mainly a private system could work.

As I understand it, Edwards' hope is that with a two-tier system -- parallel public and private insurance options -- the public system will successfully compete with the private system. As well, the private tier would be regulated in ways that it is not now, in relation to profit and overhead. (Studies show that the administrative costs within the health care system itself that are generated by insurance-related activities are about double in the US what they are in Canada.)

http://www.mercurynews.com/opinion/ci_6790508
(my emphasis)

WRIGHT: Let me move now to health care because you were out first with your universal plan, and, obviously, California has been talking about health care reform seriously for the past year. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's plan seems to be stuck on the operating table. But perhaps you could talk a little bit about how your health care plan would address the rising costs, especially to individuals, and then how you would pay the estimated $90 billion to $120 billion cost.

EDWARDS: The structure of my plan is it mandates coverage. There's an employer requirement, but there's also an employee requirement. It actually applies to every American. Every single American, by law, must be covered by health insurance, and that is a distinction from some of the proposals that are made by everyone else. If you don't mandate it, then you can have as many as 10 and 20 million Americans who don't have health care coverage. So it mandates coverage - requires employers to either cover their employees or to pay into a fund. It subsidizes health-insurance premiums up to about $100,000 of income, and each American will choose, from a health care market, what coverage they want, and it's basically private insurers, and there's also a government plan. And some people, as you know, favor single-payer, government-run health insurance. This actually provides both choices. It covers a lot of cracks in the health care system. Mental health's treated exactly the same as physical health. Pre-existing conditions are banned, outlawed. Preventive care is not only covered, but required from birth on. Long-term care and chronic care are covered. You can take your health care with you from job to job or place to place when you move. And the cost-containment provisions are several. Electronic record-keeping would be required. Today, private insurers in America charge anywhere from 30 to 40 cents on each dollar for profit and overhead. We'd cap that amount at 15 percent.

WRIGHT: Since this is a business group, let me ask you what can these folks expect if your plan is approved in terms of an impact on their bottom line?

EDWARDS: Their cost of health care is going to go down. It's going to go down dramatically. Anybody who has analyzed all these plans has concluded it will not only cover everybody, but it will significantly reduce costs for employers.

Now, I don't like two-tier systems, I don't want one for myself, and I've experienced one from the bottom tier, when my mum had to go to the ER at an NHS hospital in north London when the NHS had just about hit rock bottom.

The NHS got that way because it was defunded. The Thatcher supporters who all "went private" and thus jumped queues, either by buying private insurance or by just paying cash for what they wanted that the NHS couldn't provide when they wanted it -- why would they want to be paying taxes for the NHS so that people who couldn't afford private insurance/care could get it??

The only way that a two-tier system can survive is if the public tier is funded sufficiently, so that people who could afford to go private won't want to -- or if there are enough people who can't afford to go private that they have the political clout to keep the public tier funded. The goal would eventually be to have the public system attract the allegiance of the majority, and the private tier be used by the same kind of people as the ones who send their kids to private schools, one would hope.

Edwards' plan seems complex to me, and I don't really know how he plans to maintain funding levels in the public tier. But given the unlikelihood of any candidate who proposed a straight universal single public-payer health insurance scheme actually getting elected in the US ... well, it might be the only way to get started.

I speak purely as an inadequately informed outsider, remember!

[CTyankee]

169. Germans are not exactly poverty stricken by their tax load, the way people here are when

they face catastrophic medical bills and are forced into bankrupcy.

Europeans are not exactly storming our shores in order to get in on the "deal" of private health care in the U.S. Why aren't we seeing boatloads of Germans, Swedes and French on our shores, looking for our health care system?

You know the answer. You weren't used to the rate of the tax, but the Germans have figured out a way to live with it and live well. I can't argue with that.

[Retired AF Dem]

180. Of course they live well

typical house setup. Seperate living area for mom and dad and of course dont forget their pensions chipping into the total cost of the family. Seperate living area for a rental person. Not many American houses that are setup that way. But the Germans dont really have universal health care. The only time I used it was for an eye exam and getting new glasses. The eye exam was paid for. The glasses cost DM1200 of which I had to pay DM800 out of pocket.

[CTyankee]

183. So why don't they change the system, if it is so bad? Or get on a plane and come to the U.S.

where they would have the "freedom" of our health care system?That is my question.

As far as the living situation goes (which has NOTHING to do with the health care issue), you find this in other European countries also, notably Italy. That is a CULTURAL issue that is different from the U.S. They don't just ship the old folks to a nursing home. So?

[CTyankee]

86. Can I opt out of paying part of the military's budget because I oppose the Iraq War?

The answer is obvious and it is "no." There are plenty of bridges I don't use in my state, but I pay taxes to maintain them. Ditto schools.

You'll still pay taxes to support the universal health care system. You just won't use it, until of course you are in urgent care, the Emergency Room at your nearest hospital. It doesn't make any sense for a universal health care system to DENY you medical care at that point, does it?

Your "penalty" will be, unless your genes and lifestyle are just superb, a shorter life span and more illness that could be prevented.

[stillcool]

13. I think it's a total lack of trust...

in our government, and the programs it presents to us.

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Media_control_propaganda/PoliticsNewsMedia.html

The Politics of News Media
from the book
False Hope
by Norman Solomon, 1994
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Popularized renderings of reality, however phony, supply us with shared illusions, suitable for complying with authorized itineraries, the requisite trips through never-never lands of public pretense. Privately, we struggle to make sense of our experiences; perhaps we can create some personal space so that our own perceptions and emotions have room to stretch. But the limits of privatized solutions are severe. Public spheres determine the very air we breathe and the social environments of our lives. The standard detours meander through imposing landscapes. Beyond the outer limits of customary responses, uncharted territory is "weird"-certainly not familiar from watching TV or reading daily papers. Following in the usual footsteps seems to be safer.
Confusion about politics and power denies us clues as to where to go from here. Anne Wilson Schaef has identified pivotal results of such confusion:
" First, it keeps us powerless and controllable. No one is more controllable than a confused person; no society is more controllable than a confused society. Politicians know this better than anyone, and that is why they use innuendos, veiled references, and out-and-out lies instead of speaking clearly and truthfully.
Second, it keeps us ignorant. Professionals give their clients confusing information cloaked in intimidating language that lay-people cannot understand. They preserve their "one-up" status while preventing us from learning about our own bodies, our legal rights, and our psychology.
Third, it keeps us from taking responsibility for our own lives. No one expects confused people to own up to the things they think, say, or do, or face the truth about who they are.
Fourth, it keeps us busy. When we must spend all our time and energy trying to figure out what is going on, we have none left over for reflecting on the system, challenging it, or exploring alternatives to it.
These have the combined effect of keeping us stuck within the system. And this, I believe, is the primary purpose of confusion. A confused person will stay within the system because the thought of moving out of it is too frightening. It takes a certain amount of clarity to try new things, walk new roads, and cross new bridges, ~ and confusion makes clarity and risk taking impossible."
Mass media encourage us-viewers, listeners, readers-to suspend disbelief, willingly or otherwise. Stalked by propaganda wolves in chic clothing, we are the intended sheep. Conformity is disguised with appearances of diversity-just as silence about what matters most is in no way inconsistent with constant verbiage.
-----------------------------
The pretense is that You Are There, or you have choices; the reality, much more likely, is that you aren't anywhere, and/you can choose from the choices that have already been made for you. The delusion of "choice" from an array of televised (and corporately backed) programs is parallel to the delusion of choice from an array of pre-screened (and corporately backed) presidential candidates.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In effect, "The TV newsman comforts us as John Wayne comforted our grandparents, by seeming to have the whole affair in hand.... Since no one seems to live on television, no one seems to die there. And the medium's temporal facility deprives all terminal moments of their weight."
Being numb to untoward events is in sync with being passive. For mass media, this is a perfect fit. Television, a powerful number, asks that we do nothing-"don't touch that dial"-except go out and buy things. Everything is well-produced, including I the latest war; especially one made in the USA.

[SmokingJacket]

14. I think there's a better way to do it than make it "mandatory" --

Which many people see as interference and onerous. It might be stupid, but they do. Rather, give more benefits/less hassle if you get the checkups -- bribe, I mean, rather than threaten. Or maybe there are two levels of care that you can choose: the Primo category, that requires you to get numerous checkups, maybe quit smoking and drinking, and when you get to the hospital, say, you get the big private room. And the Basic category, where you're free to do whatever, but you might wait in line for your flu shot and have a shared hospital room.

You can complain that people are big babies... but that's how they are. I think people will be more likely to go along with universal health care (and only 51% are currently in favor of it) if they see it as allowing them some freedom to choose what kind of care they get --

[StarryNite]

46. I think the big babies

are the people who run to the doctor every time they sneeze. Oh my goodness, I just had a twitch in my leg. I better run to the doc to get a pill for RLS. Or my nose is stuffy, we can't have that. Better get a prescription that has a ton of side effects. What? You're not going to have any more babies? Well let's just yank out that uterus and those silly ovaries. You say you aren't happy 100% of the time? Well here is a pill that will fix you right up. And yes, I have known people that were just like that. Several of them suffered the consequences of running to the doctor by becoming victims of the medical system and big pharma. One was hospitalized twice for being prescribed too many medications to the point where he lost consciousness.

What's next? Is Edwards going to mandate that we all go to church so he can feel he has control of our soul as well as our body?

[AnotherGreenWorld]

74. And such people create a demand for more doctors,

and as our standards lower, so too does our health.

[CTyankee]

95. OMG, I'm a big baby! I'll throw out my blood pressure pills, cancel my

next doctor's appointment, ANYTHING to save me from the eventual state control of my soul!

Out of control much here?

[Ms. Toad]

195. Obviously you have never had RLS.

>>I just had a twitch in my leg. I better run to the doc to get a pill for RLS<<

I don't currently use a prescription to address my RLS, but it not just a "twitch in my leg." Try something more like ants crawling on your leg inside a cast so you can't shake them off and can't brush them off because of the cast. It often wakes me out of a sound sleep, and makes plane flights (or anything else preventing me from getting up and moving around) torture. I gladly downed the last non-presecription remedy available until it started causing severe ringing in my ears and was forced to find another solution - which roughly involves causing so much pain in the affected area that the nerves are too overwhelmed by pain messages to carry the RLS messages (a non-medical explanation), and eventually the area goes numb (with any luck for a few hours) until it starts over again.

Just becuase there is currently a medical remedy being touted for it that makes it sound like it's just a "twitch in my leg" doesn't mean it is trivial - ask those of us who live with it.

[cobalt1999]

20. Mandatory is what's wrong with it.

As for saving lives, you could easily be killing many people who would normally survive. Going to the doctor can be very dangerous. Besides what happens after the checkup? What if the doctor thinks you need treatment for something? Are you forced to have the treatment? If not, are you excluded? Who tracks who's been and who hasn't? Who tracks the results? Who tracks the followup? What's it cost to do yearly exams on 300 million people?

Sure, if you get hit by a bus, you want to be in the emergency room. However, you won't get me anywhere near a doctor unless a limb is about to fall off.

As for sacrifice, it's always someone else who wants to decide what sacrifices they want me to make. I'll decide my own sacrifice choices for myself.

Edwards is off my list after the SUV thing and now this.

[BlackVelvet04]

23. When doctors go on strike mortality rates go down.....

that tells me something.

[cobalt1999]

29. Yes, and that has been well documented in both France and Israel

We are not talking 3rd world countries here, but countries with the best of the best in doctors and equipment.

People don't realize how potentially lethal getting treatment can be. Mistakes are very common, drugs can have all sorts of side effects, and there is still no guarantee that if something is wrong with you, the doctors will even find it.

[BlackVelvet04]

90. and labs are virtually without

any kind of oversight for accuracy. In "The Medical Heretic" the doctor says that if a lab says you have a disease the best way to get rid of the disease is to go to a different lab. Scary, huh?

[BlackVelvet04]

98. No they don't realize

how lethal it can be....they've been brainwashed with "ask YOUR doctor".

[CTyankee]

110. You've got to be kidding. France has been cited by the World Health Organization of

the United Nations as having the best health care system in the world. This is based on benchmarks universally accepted as valid, such as infant mortality stats.

Can we please inject some reason into this debate?

[cobalt1999]

127. Exactly my point though

Even with the best health care systems, when the French doctors go on strike the death rate goes down. Going to a doctor can and is dangerous to your health unless you are in an emergency.

It's dumb to say, we'll force people to go to the doctors once a year in order to save lives. In many cases, you'll be killing some people that would otherwise live. Therefore, the individual needs to be allowed to make that decision for themselves.

[CTyankee]

157. well, I don't know if you can attribute it directly to doctors.

My guess is that when dr's go out on strike, people just put off health care. Doesn't that make sense? Once the docs are back, your medical stats return to former levels. After all, if docs don't see them, then the rates go down since they are not being seen and health issues may not be detected. It doesn't follow that "doctors are dangerous." As the saying goes, "correlation is not causation."

If more people are encouraged to seek preventive tests, then more people will be diagnosed with problems than if they didn't go for tests. This happened when, because of public health education, more women started going for mammograms. The rate of breast cancer went UP! But that was because more women were seeking the test that revealed early stages of cancer, when it could be cured. So please, statistics must be looked at in context!

[BlackVelvet04]

196. That doesn't make any sense.......

"more women started going for mammograms. The rate of breast cancer went UP! But that was because more women were seeking the test that revealed early stages of cancer, when it could be cured. So please, statistics must be looked at in context!"

So the women who had beast cancer before mammograms were never a statistic for breast cancer? I would understand if the death rate due to breast cancer went down because of mammograms but it makes no sense to say that breast cancer went up because mammograms found the breast cancer. The women who had breast cancer that wasn't found by mammogram still HAD breast cancer.

[CTyankee]

251. Yes, but a statistic isn't a statistic until it is known.

If a cancer is there, but it goes undetected, it cannot be a statistic because it hasn't been found. It is still there, just not recorded in official statistics at the time.

[bbgrunt]

205. being diagnosed because of mandatory check up provides

absolutely no guarantee of reduced overall health care costs. While some people may live longer (consuming pills and other treatments)--something is going to get you in the end. It is a logical fallacy to assume that prolonged life means that you won't still have alzheimer's or a stroke or a brain tumor or some other lingering disease at the end of your life that consumes huge amounts of health care.

It seems to me that the evidence that access to health care helps reduce overall costs comes from the fact that people would not have to use emergency rooms for treatment when their problems get out of control is the source of the savings. To then jump into the idea that everyone should have mandatory check-ups is just way over the line.

For all you who suggest that people just opt out of the mandatory part or endure a "second class" type of health care, would you deny someone in a car accident or other traumatic accident the same care because they refused mandatory check-ups?

[CTyankee]

252. "In the long run, we're all dead, " said economist J. M. Keynes.

I know I never said that checkups, mandatory or otherwise, would prevent you from getting some bad disease and dying from it. But I have known just too many people for whom early diagnosis of a disease prevented them from dying of THAT disease.

The reality is we are all going to die of something. I'd rather be proactive and do what I can do, rather than sitting back and complaining.

That said, there can never be any such thing as "mandatory checkups" in a free society. This debate has taken on some absurd dimensions. As for your concern re the car accident example, it wouldn't make sense for a universal health care system to deny people urgent care, from a public health perspective. People can be encouraged or incentivized in other ways but not forced into health care. If you don't take the hint and have regular check ups your "penalty" will more likely be worse health, perhaps debilitating, often diminishing your quality of life. You bring the punishment on yourself (also on society in the form of higher health care costs but you would be paying for those costs too, as no one can opt out of paying taxes.

Edwards mis-spoke. He'll drop the unfortunate, and false, term "mandatory." Betcha you won't hear it drop from his lips again!

[AnotherGreenWorld]

35. Two books you might find interesting:

The Medical Malpractice Myth published by University of Chicago Press.

Wall of Silence: The Untold Story of the Medical Mistakes that Kill and Injure Millions of Americans

[BlackVelvet04]

91. I'll check those out.

The docs damn near killed me about 12 years ago. I've done much better on my own using alternative medicine whenever possible.

[AnotherGreenWorld]

247. How did they almost kill you?

And did you do anything about it? Are the doctors still practicing medicine?

[BlackVelvet04]

258. Overprescribing drugs

that shouldn't have been prescribed together. What did I do? I got myself off all the medications without their help because they said insurance wouldn't pay for a program to wean me off them. I guess they are still practicing....I moved from the area.

[AnotherGreenWorld]

283. The same thing happened to me. I was almost killed by doctors on three different occasions.

And that's not even the worst of it. Unfortunately, there's little to no accountability for doctors.

[BlackVelvet04]

302. I almost died the night of my back

surgery from drugs. I was in horrible pain and the morphine wasn't working, but instead of switching drugs they kept upping the morphine. Finally my blood pressure dropped so low they freaked out and put me on an automatic blood pressure machine that checks blood pressure every 10 minutes or so. After hours of horrible pain they switched me to dilaudid which cut the pain.....but they couldn't give me much because of my blood pressure.

[StarryNite]

303. My father-in-law

was one to run to the doctor all the time. He wound up in the hospital on two different occasions for over prescribed drugs. One doctor had him on three different blood pressure medications at the same time. It almost killed him.

[Garbo 2004]

133. That people without access to health care are healthier than those with health care?

Is that what you're suggesting?

[Telly Savalas]

203. Then we should cancel Medicare and Medicaid, right?

[jody]

32. IMO she who has the gold makes the rules and if govt pays for health care, it has the gold. Those

who object to checkups can pay their own way.

Free health care paid for by government is not one of the natural, inherent, inalienable rights referred to in the Declaration of Independence or Bill of Rights.

SCOTUS has said government is not obligated to protect an individual unless she/he is in custody so I don't see how government is obligated to provide free health-care.

In that sense health-care becomes a privilege granted by We the People through the government we establish using taxes we pay. Like every privilege, there are strings attached.

[2rth2pwr]

47. If they refuse the mandated inspections

could they still get treatment at the emergency room? I don't see how this would work unless you penalize people for not promptly arriving at the designated neighborhood health inspector.

[jody]

56. "treatment at the emergency room"? It would be up to each individual to obtain insurance or pay for

health care just as it is today.

Today, people who need health care and are unable to pay for medical treatment or do not have insurance are left without.

The real problem is we have a large number of workers who do not have any type of health insurance yet part of their taxes go to pay for Medicaid for individuals and families with low incomes and resources.

For example, some 20% of National Guard troops called to active duty do not have health care insurance but their taxes contribute to Medicaid payments. IMO that's not fair.

[2rth2pwr]

59. so it would be the same as it is now. nt

[Freddie Stubbs]

269. What is those with the gold decide to add drug testing to these physicals?

:shrug:

[TwilightGardener]

34. We're adults, with free will. I don't appreciate being treated like a child

who doesn't know what's good for me. I don't need a nanny to regulate my behavior when it comes to my body and my health. Plus, doctors often overtreat or misdiagnose problems, leading to further expense and possible danger. I'm all for educating people on preventive health care (I'm a nurse), but you can only lead the horse to water, you can't make him drink.

[GreenArrow]

257. it's not so much that you are a "child"

it's that you are a "consumer".

[frazzled]

36. Checkups might be ok--mandatory preventive care, not

That is to say: I would not be happy about an insurer (government or private) insisting that the recommendations of the doctor doing the preventive checkup be followed. (Something I could see easily growing out of a mandatory checkup scenario.)

Here's an example. Scores of women I know over the age of 50 have had bone-density tests done during our annual gyn checkups, to check for signs of osteoporosis. Good preventative screening, right? Almost all of us have been told to begin drug treatments (Fossamax or similar scrip) to prevent bone fractures in the future. Almost all of us have taken it for a while. Almost all of us have stopped taking it, either because of initial side-effects or reading about pretty dramatic things that can happen (like jaw bones collapsing) or even just because it is a pain in the ass to take,or we are worried about the safety of the drug long-term. My mother's doctor told her to take the drug. Her periodontist told her absolutely not to. I fully expect in a few years we will find such drugs yanked back off the market due to high risks. I would not like to see someone's insurance status jeopardized because they did not wish to follow a preventive drug regimen. Or a preventive surgery.

The choice of whether to follow a regimen for something discovered during preventative checkups should be the patient's. Whether high cholesterol, blood pressure, osteoporosis, or even, I dare say, cancer. I worry that required checkups in the name of cost benefits might lead to required treatments: the same argument for cost-benefit could be made, and it could mean a big boon to big pharma.

Incentives for annual checkups? Okay. Education for annual checkups? Better. Requirement for mandatory checkups? If private insurance and the drug industry played no role, maybe. Short of that, no.

[BootinUp]

38. There's a relatively simple solution

Those that don't believe in the yearly or whatever mandated checkup will pay more for healthcare when they decide its a good idea.

[supernova]

40. That's an idea.

[Freddie Stubbs]

125. Will that apply to the poor and homeless as well?

:shrug:

[BootinUp]

128. well I guess not

If people are unable to pay then how could it apply to them? Somehow I doubt these are the people who will be missing the yearly checkups though.

[kenny blankenship]

42. But they'll put CHIPS in our ass!

Isn't it bad enough that they have sullied and impurified our precious bodily fluids?

[HockeyMom]

43. Let's FIND something wrong with you

They will give you every test under the stars if you are covered by insurance. They need to keep you coming back and getting their FEES.

The last time I had to go to the doctor was for a pre-employment physical about 10 years ago. I thought this would be simple. HA! Blood test, urine test, EKG, etc., etc. There was NOTHING WRONG WITH ME. How much did all this cost????

The final straw was when the doctor told me that there was blood in my urine. More tests were necessary she said. I might even have to be HOSPITALIZED. She said all this with a BIG GRIN, like she was loving it. I protested. There was NOTHING WRONG with me and I was not going to take any more tests.

My daughter had come with me at the same time for her sports physical for school. To make a long story short, the nurse mixed up the urine samples of my daughter (just getting over her period) and me. They did another urine test and it came out negative.

See what I mean? If more tests mean more money and you coming back to them, they will do it. I saw this happen with my Mom 20 years ago when she was getting Medicare. As soon as they heard that Medicare was involved, it was tests up the whazoo.

If I had been a hypochondriac, I would have been terrified that at "my age" something MUST be wrong, and would have gone through I don't know how many tests.

No, I will go to a doctor IF and WHEN I FEEL LIKE IT.

[StarryNite]

52. The testing merry-go-round

That's because there's gold in them thar ills. Then as soon as your insurance runs out, you're as healthy as can be.

[Garbo 2004]

119. You're objecting to actually getting a thorough physical when a physical was required?

That sort of thing used to be standard for a real physical exam. As opposed to the ones where they basically check to see if you're still breathing which seems to be the more recent std for my health plan which is supposed to emphasize preventive care (and keeping their costs down).

When there are incentives for doctors to keep costs down, I think you'll find that most likely you safely can go for occasional checkups without hardly any lab work or tests being done....until you wind up in the emergency room.

[The Vinyl Ripper]

48. In the future...

Everything not proscribed will be mandatory.

That is where we are heading, those who would enjoy such a life are welcome to hop on the bandwagon.

[niyad]

61. tell me which of the civilized countries that has universal health care has such a demand, please

[CTyankee]

116. None of them. This is a hysterical response and it's stupid.

It doesn't make any sense to have a universal health care plan and then try to mandate checkups. How are you going to do that?

All these people visualizing doom and gloom are just crazy. Ain't gonna happen, no way, no how.

Now, let's get back to the business at hand: electing a Democrat as President of the United States. Okay?

[valerief]

69. Two Words: Tuskegee Study

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

This is what forced checkup would turn into. Placebos and drug testing.

[StarryNite]

79. I wouldn't be surprised.

Just look at the history of mammography. When it first came out is was considered completely safe. Then the next thing you know they come out with a new kind that is supposed to be much safer than the old kind. How odd, when they had been telling us just how safe the old kind was. And we are supposed to believe "them" and buy into every test they dream up?

[cgrindley]

77. Nothing's wrong with them. They're a great idea

Edwards' stance on this health care issue is making me reconsider my opinion of him. It's the right thing to do. If people don't want to be responsible, then they should be forced to be.

[CTyankee]

101. Since mandatory health care is just impossible in a free society, John Edwards' verbiage

on the subject will change, just you watch. There won't be any more mandatory anything.

I support JE, but this is one he will have to modify. Wait and see...

[BlackVelvet04]

106. Oh, sweet Jesus.....

anything else they should be forced to do? Maybe we should force women to have children because it's the responsible thing to do. Maybe we should use chastity belts for unmarried women because it's irresponsible to have sex outside of marriage. Anything else oh authoritarian one?

[in_cog_ni_to]

113. You want people "FORCED" to be responsible???

Holy crap. Am I still on DEMOCRATICUNDERGROUND.COM???:scared:

[BlackVelvet04]

123. I'm not sure.....

I feel like I fell down the rabbit hole.

[uppityperson]

129. Yes you are still on DU. Lots of people with different views here.

[GreenArrow]

136. "Ve haff vays of making you responsible".

.

[Retired AF Dem]

151. Wow what a world to live in

be told what to eat, not to smoke or drink and be forced to jog ten miles a day. This is why I hate the far left and the far right, A bunch of assholes that want to force me to live in their idea of utopia.

[BlackVelvet04]

197. Truly.....

sometimes the left is as obnoxious as the right.

[TheFriendlyAnarchist]

202. "If people don't want to be responsible, then they should be forced to be."

NO NO NO! Good God, for all that is holy, NO! That goes against everything that liberalism stands for. The absolute LAST thing that we need is more government that says they know whats best for us.

[cgrindley]

209. Hey, I'm from the socialist side of the progressivism, it's totally cool for us

to have lots and lots more government and a more nanny-like presence of government in everyone's lives.

[Toasterlad]

80. If You Made Breathing Mandatory, Some People Here Would Immediately Hold Their Breath.

It's the "slippery slope" mentality. The "give 'em an inch" mentality. The "this tinfoil hat protects my thoughts against the medical community's built-in people-finder that they installed surreptitiously during my last mandatory check-up, the fuckers!" mentality.

No matter how beneficial a law may be, if it REQUIRES something from these clowns, they jump up and down and holler like children.

[xchrom]

109. it's that whole bullshit that somehow the government is alien from American life.

that is both false and absurd on the face of it.

and only serves to underscore that Americans don't understand THEY are responsible for how their government works.

the government is made up of americans -- your fellow citizens -- your rep is a phone call away -- etc -- but no that's never good enough for people -- they have to make up stories about monsters under the bed that are going to steal their individualism.

which isn't worth a damn in the consumerist society america has turned into WITH the help of ''mandatory'' is scary folk.

[TheFriendlyAnarchist]

142. Now come on man. Here me out for a second.

I'm against it because it is my right to decide if I want medical care.

We should get rid of prescription service altogether. If I want to buy my own meds and treat myself as I see fit, then that should be my right. If I want to become pop a couple dozen oxy 80's because I have the flu, that is my right.

It is all part of the 1984 mentality that we should let the government decide what is best for us. The day that such a thing occurs, I will cry 'Revolution' from the rooftops.

Along with this, I have no issue with insurance companies wanting you to see a doctor. If I want their coverage for my medication, then it is THEIR right to know that I'm not just popping pills because of an educated (or not) guess. If I want them to shell out the cash, then they have all the rights in the world to demand that I go to a doctor and have my 'need' for those drugs validated.

But, for the government or insurance companies to say that I must go to a doc when I'm not asking for their money, is a violation of the principles of human rights that we supposedly hold so dear.

(Reposted from my OR)

[Toasterlad]

201. You Don't Even Know What the Plan Would Be Yet.

Apparently, Edwards didn't really say the words "mandatory checkups" (I don't really know, since I didn't read it - I already disagree with Edwards on too many points for him to be my candidate, so I don't keep up with his campaign). However, I personally am totally in favor of mandatory checkups. So many health problems are correctable with early detection, it makes perfect sense to enforce checkups in order to keep down health costs for everyone.

The point is, we're living in a society. When you live in a society, you have to make sacrifices for those around you. I have no children, and will NEVER have children, yet my taxes go to educating YOUR kids. I don't begrudge this; it's part of living in a society, and I'd rather live in a society with well-educated people than ignorant people (we can discuss the success of America's school system in a separate thread). If we want universal health care, it is only fair that we shoulder additional responsibilities to make it work, and if part of that is mandatory checkups to reduce the number of long-term treatments we'd have to pay for down the road, I see nothing wrong with that.

Those of you with objections are welcome to make them. The system doesn't EXIST yet. I'm sure that there will be a way to opt-out of the system if you don't believe in doctors (and good luck with that tumor: I'm sure Jesus will get right on that). If you want more say in when and how and where you have to see a doctor, make your wishes known to your representatives. Again, the system doesn't EXIST yet, and already, people are screaming about losing their rights.

I'm sorry, but anyone saying, "The government has no right to not let me be sick!" is just asinine.

[2rth2pwr]

308. I'm sorry, but anyone saying, "The government has no right to not let me be sick!" is just asinine.

Ya gotta love that one.

I can see it now- a neighbor kid notices I have the sniffles and reports me for not getting the "required" treatment. The Big Black Suburban screeches to a halt and I am thrown in for a trip to the holding cell for malcontents........

No Thanks.

[Toasterlad]

315. You Forgot Your Hat:

:tinfoilhat:

[2rth2pwr]

317. I know you are, but what am I?

Here's the one I see you wearing-:dunce:

This has been a great theoretical discussion, and I think it's obvious that a health care reform that mandated doctor visits, checkups and treatments will not not become law anytime soon.

It has also been revealing how many people are willing to impose and require these things without a second thought and it it's a great reminder of why we need to be continually vigilant in protecting our rights from both evil doers and so called "know what's best for you" types.

[BlackVelvet04]

198. No, it's children who

blindly do whatever they are told.

[GreenArrow]

259. children often rebel;

when a child doesn't want to do something, he finds a way not to do it, or does it only after being disciplined into submission.

Adults, those whose mechanisms of blind obedience to authority, through years discipline and conditioning, have been crystalized into ritualism are much, much more dangerous.

[The Vinyl Ripper]

324. You don't have kids, eh? n/t

[Katherine Brengle]

264. Indeed.

[niyad]

85. tell me which of the civilized countries that has universal health care has such a demand, please

[xchrom]

87. free universal healthcare -- and someone is going to make me get a check up? --

sign me up.

and please -- sometimes you have to do things you don't want to in order to get the best results for everyone.

[tired_old_fireman]

93. Thanks. I think you said it better than I did.

[lumberjack_jeff]

104. People may be outraged about it, but it ain't true.

The government isn't going to round up people and take 'em to the doctor.

Cripes!

[Vinca]

105. If it's "mandatory," that means someone is going to have to keep

tabs on the entire population of the United States. What's that . . . 300+ million? We'll need an entirely new "big brotherish," doctor-police agency in the federal government. Edwards would be better to use the word "suggest."

[in_cog_ni_to]

112. Not to worry! They can just "Chip" us all, when our "chip" number doesn't show for an exam in a year

the computer can just send the Gestapo to our home or place of business and drag our asses to the doctor. Not to worry...they've got it covered!

[qdemn7]

107. So if mandatory checkups

Become the law, and the patient goes and is told they are obese are many Americans are today, what then? What kind of mandatory rules are going to put in place for that? Or using tobacco? Or taking street drugs? Going to have your MD call the police because you smoke dope? Have unprotected sex?

C'mon tired_old_fireman I want to read your answers. :puke: :grr:

[in_cog_ni_to]

111. It needs to be worded differently. Perhaps, "Anyone wishing to have a yearly physical may do so,

free of charge." Personally, I would have a physical every year if it's covered, but I really, really, REALLY dislike being told I HAVE TO DO SOMETHING. Not just by the government, but by anyone....in general. Ask me nicely and I'll consider it. Make it "Mandatory" and it's just not going to sit well.

Big Brother makes it MANDATORY to have a health physical? I don't think so.

[uppityperson]

115. I worked for feds at a state fed building doing check ups.Every employee could get 1 every 4 yrs.

Every employee could get basic blood work done every yr. All for free. We were very busy. Did blood draws 8 hours a day for a whole week, did PEs 1 day every wk. I like it being offered, but not mandated, and not every yr but every few yrs except for those with health problems.

[Wiley50]

118. Would the Mandatory Check Up include Drug Testing?

You know. You might need Substance Abuse Treatment.

Would this be considered Health Screening?

What about psychological testing?

You might have a mental health problem.

and

In both cases would treatment be mandatory too?

[Bluebear]

126. Fair questions, but Edwards didn't mention any of those.

[iverglas]

132. oh, for pity's sake

Nobody can force someone else to get health care in a liberal democracy kinda place -- a place that has a constitution that guarantees the right to liberty and suchlike.

I couldn't guess what caused Edwards' apparent momentary lapse of lucidity, but that's all I could possibly imagine it was.

Here's the only bit that seems to be appearing anywhere in actual quotation marks:

http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2007/09/02/ap4075654.html

"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."

Now, that's a conditional -- if you are going to be in the system, then you'll have to do X.

His plan does seem to require that everyone be in the system. So it does sound like he's requiring that everyone accept what the system provides. I think he misspoke himself, rather badly.

I suspect he had in mind the idea that people ought not to allow their health to decline for 20 years and then expect a publicly operated/funded system to fix them. I suspect he fully realizes that in a genuine universal plan there is nothing that can be done to stop anyone from doing that. I imagine he also knows that few people are so stupid that they would do that, when they have real access to health care, or so diabolical that they would do it just to cost the healthcare plan a bundle for major surgery when they could have a problem detected and treated more cheaply 20 years earlier.

But really, I suspect that what he was really getting at was that healthcare providers/insurers would be REQUIRED to PROVIDE the preventive healthcare services he's talking about. That's sure how *I* would interpret "It requires that everybody be covered. It requires that everybody get preventive care", myself, if I weren't trying to interpret it in the evilest and, really, most implausible possible way. It requires that everybody be given preventive care.

The rest of it goes like this:

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."

Me, I'd want to read / see / hear what he actually said, not some journalist's virally replicated paraphrase/representation of what he said. Is it so inconceivable that what was in his head was that women should be required to have ACCESS TO regular mammograms, and that their healthcare providers/insurers be required to PROVIDE them with regular mammograms?


Why the hell doesn't someone just ask the Edwards campaign what he said, and what he meant?

Everybody here knows perfectly well that no president of the USA can force people to get health care they don't want, in the overwhelming majority of situations one could imagine. (Typhoid Marys, well, maybe a choice between treatment and isolation.)

I can imagine that Edwards supporters (I tend that way myself, but I'm a foreigner so it doesn't matter) would like to see Edwards say what he means a little more carefully. But whether I were an Edwards supporter or not, I imagine I'd be pretty disgusted at the pretty disingenuous display of foolish mock outrage I'm seeing hereabouts.

[Forkboy]

147. Foolish mock outrage on DU?

Never.

:)

[Dave From Canada]

135. Why are mandatory check ups necessary? In Canada, we have a pretty solid healthcare system, but the

government doesn't tell us when to go see a doctor. You don't have to micro-manage people's lives in order to provide quality healthcare. In my opinion, Edwards is just going to scare people away from universal coverage when there's no reason to be scared of it, except by crap like this.

[TheFriendlyAnarchist]

137. I'm against it because it is my right to decide if I want medical care.

We should get rid of prescription service altogether. If I want to buy my own meds and treat myself as I see fit, then that should be my right. If I want to become pop a couple dozen oxy 80's because I have the flu, that is my right.

It is all part of the 1984 mentality that we should let the government decide what is best for us. The day that such a thing occurs, I will cry 'Revolution' from the rooftops.

Along with this, I have no issue with insurance companies wanting you to see a doctor. If I want their coverage for my medication, then it is THEIR right to know that I'm not just popping pills because of an educated (or not) guess. If I want them to shell out the cash, then they have all the rights in the world to demand that I go to a doctor and have my 'need' for those drugs validated.

But, for the government or insurance companies to say that I must go to a doc when I'm not asking for their money, is a violation of the principles of human rights that we supposedly hold so dear.

[iverglas]

141. just a bit of fact, to go with the phobia

Honestly. Some people will just believe anything. Anything they want to believe, anyhow. Or they'll say anything they want somebody else to believe ...

http://www.johnedwards.com/issues/health-care/costs/
(with my emphasis)

A New Era In Chronic And Preventive Care

... 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)

Now, does that sound like he's going to have chips implanted in everybody's cranium?

Why would he be talking about providing incentives for participation in preventive care, when he's proposing to just force everybody to get it? I wonder whether it might be because he isn't ...

Might there be a reason why this stupid story really doesn't seem to have legs in the real world?

[supernova]

158. But, but,

I wuz having so much fun being pro-regular anal probings.


:sarcasm: :P

[CTyankee]

164. It's obviously from what you've posted, that he means everyone will be required to PAY

for preventive care, through the tax system. Once the cost is spread across the vast tax system, costs will decline.

This whole thing has been so blown out of proportion, I really wonder what is going on here on DU? What has happened to common sense?

[supernova]

168. I wish to hell I knew

and there's also that poster who says all docs are evil and corrupt so let's just not use them, m'kay? Oy.

[CTyankee]

176. More than a little off the wall if you ask me...n/t

[bridgit]

148. I'd want to know how any pre-existing matters might be used against me if any...

that all the t's were crossed, i's were dotted in my favor, medical data was secure (yeah i know fat chance but still), otherwise for a person such as my self that is not able to afford a voluntary check up; a scheduled one does not seem that out of place but that's just me

[iverglas]

159. in a universal health care system

the key word is UNIVERSAL. There's no such thing as a "pre-existing condition" for any purpose other than treatment of whatever condition one has, pre-existing or otherwise.

Once again, I recommend that anyone concerned about what John Edwards said ... or is being portrayed as having said by a journalist who seems not to have taken really good notes ... read what he actually says:

http://www.johnedwards.com/issues/health-care/costs/

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. (AAFP, 2007; Kelley, et al., 2004)

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)

Someone who really is going to make it mandatory for people to obtain preventive care -- as compared to making it mandatory for health care providers/insurers to provide preventive care -- isn't actually too likely to be talking about incentives for people to obtain it.

Me, I'll go with what's in black and white in his policies, and not whatever badly phrased dozen words come out of his mouth when he's speaking off the cuff ... or a journalist puts in his mouth.

[bridgit]

161. my sense is that HMO's & underwriters here will find a way to lobby such...

language into even 'universal' notions of care & coverage, they are a very formidable block of block-heads that much is understood, these matters will be required, via our vaunted deliberatory process, to transit a gauntlet of ear marks, add-ons & nit-pickers...i await the final resolve, here's hoping for what is best, we will all be watching

[supernova]

166. I'm sorta in the same boat brigit

Which I think it's imperative that we patients have the primary seat at the table. Why assume from the outset that we will not have a say?

I say, let's muscle our way in!!!!!

[bridgit]

171. i'm feeling you, let's muscle on in, but this is funny...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=1725368&mesg_id=1727003 :wow: :headbang: hope all y'all having some good down time :hi:

[bemildred]

152. It's the mandatory part.

Citizens are not property to be ordered around, bought and sold. They are independent agents who make their own decisions and who are the best judges of what is in their own personal best interest.

[iverglas]

162. do you really, really believe there's a mandatory part???

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 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 believe in how things oughta work if the system he is proposing is to work?

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?


Why are so many people so eager to protray John Edwards as the next Joe Stalin?? I ask the world in general.

[Skittles]

167. THANK YOU

I can't believe DU, falling for corporate America SPIN

[GreenArrow]

263. Edward's plan is corporate America spin

Get the god damn insurance companies out of it.

[CTyankee]

173. Of course. As I have said elsewhere, this "mandatory" thing makes no sense.

It is a non sequitor in a free society. Just stupid.

What will be required is access to health care for every American. Most people want that.

I am so suprised and disappointed that all these DUers are screaming about what he said, as it appears it has been completely distorted.

Please, DUers. Check stuff out before you go all crazy...

[Garbo 2004]

192. Apparently, according to some, health care is so dangerous to your health we all should be against

universal coverage since, you know, all health care does is kill people. And extending health care to those who don't have/can't afford it will only result in more danger to their health. So really, those without access to affordable health care don't know how lucky they are. They're much better off now, since they're less tempted to actually go to a doctor. It's for their own good, really.

So I guess the next question is, why does John Edwards want to kill people by making health care available for all? The bastard!

:crazy:

[CTyankee]

250. Yeah, how dare he?

I noted with relief that nowhere in my 2 morning papers nor on GMA was this brouhaha here on DU even mentioned.

Now folks can get on with their lives...

[bemildred]

175. I have no opinion at present.

There are certainly several moves afoot to make health insurance mandatory, so it's not implausible on its face. Whether Mr Edwards was actually stupid enough to say or think such things remains to be seen.

[GreenArrow]

265. it was his intention in his 2004 plan

to make it mandatory for children only. Now, it's 2007, another campaign, and it's time to roll out the new product line, everything bigger and better. Mandatory is what he meant.

[renie408]

255. Has somebody posted this information separately? This is good stuff.

Have you written this as a separate thread? I have seen a couple of things here about this whole mandatory health check ups ooga booga and didn't realize until right now that it really WAS just ooga booga.

[iverglas]

256. okay ... I'll do it

I always hope that people participating in a discussion thread will read what's in it ... but I'm just a cock-eyed optimist. I also kinda don't want to insert myself into discussions of US electoral politics, being a foreigner and all, but I'll make an exception. ;)

[renie408]

282. Thanks! It is easy to get lost in the opinions when people start arguing over what they "think"

is going on.

[rinsd]

298. It would be easier if Edwards supporters weren't vehemently defending mandatory checkups

[2rth2pwr]

311. Sometimes they are defending mandatory checkups

and at the same time saying the quotes are taken out of context.

Blindly following/defending any candidate is disgusting.

[StarryNite]

322. It's not only disgusting,

it's creepy. I was actually leaning towards voting for Edwards too. Not so sure anymore. Definitely not if he meant what he said.

[Clintonista2]

199. It's not about mandatory check ups, its about them hating edwards

[BlackVelvet04]

244. No, it's about mandatory

check ups. I don't hate Edwards but I certainly wouldn't support him now if his plan really calls for mandatory checkups.

[lligrd]

248. Simply Not True

In fact, I like Edwards. Wasn't my first choice but I was beginning to look again. Still have a hard time forgiving him for the war vote but I like a lot of what he has said recently. But mandating that I go to the doctor, absolutely not. This not only takes away one of the few freedoms we have left but is extremely dangerous in my opinion. If that is his platform, I could never vote for him.

[Crunchy Frog]

249. Then why are there Edwards supporters on this thread

saying they disagree with this? Why do people on DU have to personalize everything as being about their candidate? It is possible to have an opinion about something and not have it be about hating or loving a particular candidate. I would disagree with this no matter who was advocating it.

[Art_from_Ark]

200. In the Japanese national health care system

yearly (or periodic) check-ups are not mandatory. They raise the rates and schedule annual check-ups for us over-40 types (because we suddenly develop more health risks, dontcha know?), but the check-ups are still optional.

[1932]

219. It probably takes less time out of your year than un/buckling your seatbelt every time you get

get in/out of chair, it's more likely to save your life, and unlike seatbelt laws, there's no fine if you don't do it (you probably just don't get free health care).

[rodeodance]

260. What amazes me is that there is even a debate about this necessary issue.

[Katherine Brengle]

262. People want all the perks with none of the obligations.

Seriously.

A check-up - like, weigh in, blood pressure, listen to your ticker, listen to any concerns, take a little blood - make sure everything's working. Minimally invasive, potentially lifesaving.

As someone said in another thread a day or so ago - we don't have a healthcare system in this country right now - we have a sick care system. Primarily because people cannot afford preventive care and only see a doctor when things are really bad.

Preventive care would significantly decrease ER visits, one of the biggest drains on the system.

It's selfish to want universal coverage, yet refuse required preventive care. All insurance plans have requirements - why shouldn't the government's plan?

[MindPilot]

273. Yes but...there must be a serious privacy firewall

When does that checkup turn into a drug screen? Will "listening to my concerns" become an opportunity to profile my politics, sexual practices or religious beliefs?

Now I do have a reasonable expectation that since I'm paying for my insurance, the information I tell my doc does not immediately become the property of the government. I need some really serious assurance that will not be the case under a government-mandated single-payer plan.

Ten years ago I might have thought nothing about it, but now I cannot trust the government under any circumstances, and I doubt if I ever will be able to again--no matter who takes the presidency in 08.

[Xenotime]

266. I think it's a good idea.

There are too many people who don't go and then wind up paying more.

[GreenArrow]

267. "Anthem Healthcare". "Novartis Pharmaceuticals".

"Health Care Career". Just a couple of the rotating Google Ads now displaying.

[ryanus]

268. "cry every time someone tells us what to do."

Why do I need the government to "tell" me what to do? I think I can make better health decisions on my own, thank you.

Hey, just do what Bush tells you what to do, and stop crying like a baby about it, okay?

[renie408]

292. Then make them and pay for them yourself. That is your right.

Even though Edwards didn't say anything about requiring mandatory health check ups, I don't see why it would be a problem. It makes sense. You want free health insurance? Then get the check ups. You don't want to follow a health maintenance program? Pay for your stage 4 cancer on your own.

[derby378]

270. Uh, first off, we have a CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT to own firearms...

But what are these "assault weapons" of which you speak?

There is, however, no Constitutional requirement for me to get a physical every year. We are supposed to be the party of individual freedom and, if you'll remember, choice. It's freedom, baby, yeah!

[Extend a Hand]

271. no thank you

I'd rather take my chances.

Just how would you punish those that failed to comply with 'mandatory' physicals?

There is just way to much potential for abuse.

[StarryNite]

301. Why yes there is way

too much potential for abuse with this half-baked idea. What if somebody doesn't follow the doctor's orders to take a medication or to quit smoking or to exercise the amount the doctor thinks they should? Would the doctor then report back to the government that the patient wasn't in compliance? Talk about Big Brother!

[rodeodance]

274. YOu can CONTACT Edwards here:

I just sent him a memo. He needs to know your thoughts on this issue.

http://johnedwards.com/about/contact/form/

[renie408]

293. You know he never said anything about mandatory check ups, right? n/t

[Cameron27]

299. Yes he did say mandatory check ups.

He said exactly that on the Lance Armstrong forum.

[Marrah_G]

276. The fact that someone is here asking this is scary

It's like accidentally falling down the rabbit hole and landing in some bad sci-fi movie.

[knitter4democracy]

277. What if the provider list is wide and varied?

What if Naturopaths and massage therapists and midwives and many other kinds of practicioners were on the list? I'm just asking, since so many here hate doctors. What if you didn't have to see an MD or a DO but instead could see an ND?

[smoogatz]

278. The problem is obvious:

they're mandatory. It's intrusive bureaucracy, telling us what to do. I'll go to the doctor when I'm damned good and ready; I don't need the government to tell me when to wipe my ass, mow my lawn or get my teeth cleaned, and I sure as hell don't need them telling me when to get a check-up. Sorry, mandatory doctor visits are a colossally stupid idea, and the attempt at damage-control here on DU is pretty telling. And you know, there's no rule that says in order to have universal healthcare you have to have mandatory check-ups. That's just some bean-counter control-freak's idea of fine-tuning the plan. I was beginning to take Edwards seriously, but he jumped the shark on this one.

[StarryNite]

300. Exactly!

You are spot on. I don't see how people can want to give up their rights to choice when it comes to their own bodies. What's next, mind control? And what if they go to the doctor and the doctor tells them they need to quit smoking and they don't? Will that reflect in higher rates for them too? And no, I don't and never have smoked.

[Hippo_Tron]

280. IMO I think it could be a pre-condition for receiving universal health care

We do need to consider that poor people may have difficulty getting off of work to see a doctor or finding transportation to the doctor's office and make considerations for that.

I just think that you should be able to opt out. If you don't want to be covered by universal health care then you have the option not to see a doctor every year.

[GreenArrow]

307. here's an even better option

Offer a true universal health care plan in which everyone is covered, no strings, simply by virtue of being a human being, and which includes physical checkups, and then let people free to make their own decisions about when and when they wish to take advantage of them.

[StarryNite]

313. No!

Don't you know that people have to be told what to do? That's why we have mommies. And the government tells our mommies what to do.

[GreenArrow]

314. apparently so

It is for their own good, after all.

[BlackVelvet04]

326. But then the conformists....

the one's who need to be told what to do in order to function wouldn't have anyone to look down on and punish. Where's the authoritarianism in what you propose?

[GreenArrow]

327. Geez, where is it anyway?

I never can remember that damn authoritarianism when I need it.

I guess those poor saps could just look around at the rest of us enjoying our insurance company free, no-mandatory checkup universal healthcare and join in. Or maybe they could take it out on their kids?

[Sanctified]

295. How in the world would they ever enforce "Mandatory" checkups?

Are they going to have another branch of the Government like the IRS going through and auditing people to see if they had their "Mandatory" checkups for that year? Are they going to throw the health care evaders into jail for not participating?

The comment was dumb and the idea is dumb. I think people should have control over their own bodies, the Government should make suggestions but not make shit Mandatory.

[AtomicKitten]

305. "mandatory" is a fascist directive

Rather, yearly checkups should be AVAILABLE and SUGGESTED.

[StarryNite]

306. Bingo!

:bounce:

[GreenArrow]

309. seems like a simple enough proposition

but a tough one for authoritarian types.

[AtomicKitten]

312. "mandatory" IS authoritarian -- get that part straight

[Exiled in America]

310. I honestly don't know. But I know that I'm uncomfortable with the idea.

Hows that for honesty?

[alarimer]

319. The mandatory part

It would be the epitome of "nanny state".