I think you’re being too generous when you say, “And I suppose there’s a reasonable argument as to whether the Democratic plans do more harm than good.”

The analysis of the root problem shows clearly that further centralizing control, as the Dems are wont to do with health care, would absolutely do more harm than good. As I said earlier: [Edwards] seeks to replace a system where the consumer is ignored in favor of the employer, who at least is somewhat influenced by consumers (who can always seek another job), to the government, which has police power over those same consumers. In terms of responsiveness, does this at all seem like a good idea?

The problem here, with health care, is too many barriers between health care providers and consumers making mutually-beneficial arrangements based on their own needs and preferences.

We’re now reduced to arguing over all sorts of plans that patch over the problem rather than solving it.

I would untie the knot, rather than “patch over” it.

Perhaps I am too cynical, but I would rather just leave Edwards to deal with his own health and me to look after mine rather than trying to make us both accountable for each other. Health care won’t be solved by government, just like poverty wasn’t solved by a government War on Poverty. People will be sick and people will do stupid things. The best strategy is just to force people to mitigate risks themselves and to pay for any mistakes they make directly, rather than having everybody else subsidize their stupidity. My initial remark about Elizabeth Edwards’s cancer was to emphasize that more money won’t automatically mean better preventative care or even actual care. While her wealth will get her the best care possible, it might not be enough to battle the cancer itself. However, the point still remains that the plan Edwards proposes still doesn’t guarantee success; rather it guarantees higher costs.

A quick answer to your main point. What about the possibility that we shouldn’t find and treat? Sure, we could spend hundreds of thousands of dollars trying to treat a disease, but is it worth it? For example, I could spend 30 hours a week working out and spending hundreds of dollars more eating healthier, but is it worth it? Edwards doesn’t seem to come across as thinking of the opportunity cost of his preventative care. If I misread that then maybe our disagreement is not as substantial.

“in an effort to find and treat “the first trace of problem.””

Note that word “effort”. It means that the desire is to find and treat the first trace of the problem — but that the possibility of failure is recognized. Notice also that the consequent verbs are ‘find and treat’, not ‘cure’.

I’m surprised by your assertion that the Democratic schemes would help only the rich. Could you elaborate on that?

That is my impression. The schemes I have seen all seem to believe that diseases can be cured (”If only we do fetus stem cell research, Christopher Reeve will walk again,” or something along those lines by Edwards during the 2004 campaign). Look at the this quote from the article:

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.”

That assumes that preventative care would find “the first trace of the problem,” but as you mentioned above, preventative care does not always work.

I take a different view. I believe diseases are always going to exist (just like poverty) and that while an expensive preventative test could detect a disease early, actually paying for the disease later may not be as expensive as the test itself given to everybody. However, I will rephrase my quote because it was poorly written. Democrats talk about curing all diseases and emphasize how this or that government program will help everybody, but the system they want to put in place would only cure diseases for the rich while making the poor wait in line for the preventative testing itself. (The plans I have seen, both HillaryCare and the ideas presented by Edwards, utilize universal health care along the same lines as Canadian and British, both of which have previously been discussed on this blog.) I hope this helps better explain my perceptions of the Democrat plans.

“Unfortunately for many in the Democrat Party, their plans seem to be emphasizing curing all diseases.”

That’s not what I read in the various health plan schemes I have seen. Could you provide some evidence in support of this patently preposterous claim?

No, that wasn’t a cheap shot. Just a simple observation. You use the word cost-effective, but to who? If Elizabeth Edwards got preventative care or not does not concern me currently. John Edwards would like to change that. He wants to force me to go to the doctor’s office when I don’t need to and to force me to pay for everybody else to go as well. Why shouldn’t I be able to question the science behind his claim? If preventative care is not foolproof, then we need a cost/benefit analysis, not a wonder program from the government.

However, you do make a great point. Preventative care can help prevent diseases from getting worse. Unfortunately for many in the Democrat Party, their plans seem to be emphasizing curing all diseases. Edwards’s plan is simply the same old tune with different words. Until he understands the point you made, that not all diseases can be prevented, his plan has a fatal flaw, even if you do consider it a cheap shot. Ignoring criticism of his own family’s health with all their money does not invalidate my point about his program.

You need not worry about Edwards’ plan. It’s not going to happen.

In order to drive health care costs down, would you require the AMA to release its hold on the number of doctors that can be created every year? As I understand it, the AMA creates a number based on what it perceives is needed by the market or can be handled by the market. The law profession does not have such limits.

All Mr. Edwards’ plan is going to do is make my job of providing the best care that I can to my patients much harder. As it is now, I can work in a number of patients every day while still providing quality time and care to my patients and having some semblance of a life. Who is going to want to practice Internal Medicine, Family Medicine, or Pediatrics if a system like this is shoved down our throats? Which patient is going to want to see their PCP if they’re to busy to see them because they’re busy doing mandatory physicals? I predict that ER visits (the most expensive venue for health care) would increase under this plan markedly. Who’s going to pay for that?

Create a free-market system where the price of medical care in this country (specifically services provided by subspecialists) can come down. Make it easier for those of us who enjoy practicing medicine to practice medicine by getting rid of ridiculously complicated payment schemes (i.e., Medicare, which all of the insurance plans subsequently base their rates on). Penalize physicians who order unnecessary tests for their own benefit (yearly cardiac stress tests, every 2 year colonoscopies), and perhaps you’ll see the number of General Internal Medicine, Pediatrics, and Family Medicine practitioners rise. Maybe then you’ll have enough physicians to make your plan work, Mr. Edwards. Then your challenge will be to actually make people give a damn about their health…