Op-Ed: How to Turn Health Care into an Arm of Big Brother

Buy an ad on DigitalJournal.com

His concern for universal health care is admirable, but the hint of possible coercion is much less so. Edwards' emphasis on mammograms obviously stems from his wife's struggles with breast cancer. He wants women to be able to seek treatment at "the first trace of problem."

"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," Edwards said. The mandatory check ups and mammograms are a logical extension of that idea.

Has Edwards taken the time to think about the implications of his plan? Is he considering some kind of monitoring system? Without enforcement, the concept of mandatory is meaningless. The administration of such a system would be a bureaucratic nightmare. Since he's talking about coverage from birth to death, what we might foresee is constant supervision of people's lifestyles; anything that would endanger your health would have to be illegal.

Would there be punishments for failure to see your doctor or dentist regularly, for failure to follow prescribed diets, take prescribed medications, or submit to prescribed surgery? Would you be able to opt out of the system and take your chances, even make your own choices about your care, and pay for it yourself?

"Mandatory" is a Pandora's box, and who knows what evils will fly out of it? An enormous boost in profits for pharmaceutical companies would be inevitable. So would vastly increased income for doctors. About the doctors...how long would it take for medical schools to turn out enough doctors for such a grandiose scheme?

Then again, it's a political year, and the chances are good that Edwards is blowing hot air, knowing very well that universal health care in the United States is about as likely as all the rich deciding to tithe 10% of their income for those less fortunate than themselves.