tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14703787.post2339901254772741161..comments2007-09-06T21:28:59.839-04:00Sarahhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05185078182316296961noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14703787.post-26463128200627717932007-09-06T21:28:00.000-04:002007-09-06T21:28:00.000-04:00Pragmatically speaking, the good this would provide is that preventative-based health care is FAR cheaper, and of course FAR healthier, than health care that only pays attention to you once you have an emergency.<BR/><BR/>Prevention would cut way down on the number of people who use the ER as primary care.<BR/><BR/>What I don't get, though, is why Edwards suggests that preventive care be mandatory. I mean, if we just made it FREE, lots of people would go and use it, thus reducing the amount of super-expensive ER visits, the strain on their own health and the strain on the health care system.Heather W. Reichgotthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04678926165429957396noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14703787.post-82171553474962824342007-09-06T17:54:00.000-04:002007-09-06T17:54:00.000-04:00It seems to me that it is precisely the desire to maintain the free market that leads to the coercive element you describe.<BR/><BR/>If they didn't need to think about affordability, many people would have those preventative things anyway. Sure some wouldn't (just like a small proportion of the population don't use public schools) but it wouldn't change the overall impact on the public good of reducing acute care costs because most people would do it voluntarily.<BR/><BR/>You only need coercion to make people spend their own money that way.JoVEhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04280723520638028062noreply@blogger.com