PDA

View Full Version : the democratic constitution


pops
08-12-2008, 12:02 PM
Democrats adopt goal of health care guarantee
By CALVIN WOODWARD – 3 days ago

PITTSBURGH (AP) — Democrats shaped a set of principles Saturday that commits the party to guaranteed health care for all, heading off a potentially divisive debate and edging the party closer to the position of Barack Obama's defeated rival, Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Obama, soon to be the Democratic nominee, has stopped short of proposing to mandate health coverage for all. He aims to achieve something close to universal coverage by making insurance more affordable and helping struggling families pay for it.

Advisers to Obama and Clinton both told the party's platform meeting they were happy with the compromise, adopted without opposition or without explanation as to how health care would be guaranteed.

In return for the guarantee, activists dropped a tougher platform amendment seeking a government-run, single-payer system and another amendment explicitly holding out Clinton's plan as the one to follow.

The party now declares itself "united behind a commitment that every American man, woman and child be guaranteed to have affordable, comprehensive health care."

Under any system in play, most people would still put out money for health insurance as they do now, but they would get help when needed.

That was a common feature of the plans put forward by Obama and Clinton in the primaries. But she would have required everyone to get insurance while his plan makes it mandatory only for children.

Democratic Party Chairman Howard Dean praised "the spirit of this compromise." Judith McHale, a Clinton supporter who helped to lead the platform meeting, said Obama and Clinton advisers worked collegially throughout the process.

For the 186-member platform committee, one imperative Saturday was to satisfy Clinton loyalists still sore from the often acrimonious primary fight while keeping policy firmly in synch with Obama's campaign.

There was little dissent, or room for it.

Democrats made mostly cosmetic changes to a platform draft prepared for the meeting, a process designed to showcase unity more than to air differences in the party at large on hot-button issues such as the Iraq war, abortion and health care.

Party platforms are a statement of principles that are not binding on the candidates or the next president and they are typically given little attention after they are adopted.

Even so, the party's decision to embrace guaranteed health care is bound to become a leading yardstick by which Obama's presidency will be measured if he wins in November.

The platform was to be approved by the committee later Saturday, then submitted to the national convention in Denver later this month.

On Iraq, the platform states that Democrats "expect to complete redeployment within 16 months," reflecting Obama's time frame but not the tone of certainty he brought to it when he was running in the primaries.

The 51-page platform draft showed the influence of Clinton's supporters not only in the extensive section on health care but in its assertions about the treatment of women. Some of her backers believed sexism dogged her campaign for the nomination.

An extensive section on women's rights is included and the votes she received in the primaries are described as "18 million cracks in the highest glass ceiling."

Even so, the platform is thoroughly tuned to Obama's proposals.

It reasserts his promise of energy rebates to struggling families, pension subsidies, a crackdown on predatory lenders, higher taxes for families earning over $250,000, tax breaks for others, billions for economic stimulus and "direct high-level diplomacy, without preconditions," in the case of Iran.

On trade, it promises a multilateral approach to improving the North American Free Trade Agreement, without saying specifically what those changes should be. Obama criticized NAFTA when campaigning in states that felt disadvantaged by it, but the platform offers no suggestion he would take unilateral action against the deal.

Instead, it says: "We will work with Canada and Mexico to amend the North American Free Trade Agreement so that it works better for all three North American countries."

Democrats typically have a strong plank in favor of abortion rights; this year's version is stronger than usual. "The Democratic Party strongly and unequivocally supports Roe v. Wade and a woman's right to choose a safe and legal abortion, regardless of ability to pay, and we oppose any and all efforts to weaken or undermine that right," it says.

Gone is the phrase from the past that abortions should be safe, legal and "rare."

The party also pledges to ensure access to adoption programs, prenatal and postnatal care and income support programs for expectant mothers who need the help.

The party also:

_Promises "tough, practical, and humane immigration reform in the first year of the next administration."

_Favors restoration of the ban on assault-type weapons and other "reasonable regulation" that recognizes the constitutional right to own and use firearms.

_Favors helping religious groups provide social services as long as "public funds are not used to proselytize or discriminate."

_Promises to close the Guantanamo detention center.

_Promises to double the Peace Corps.

Bluemyboy
08-13-2008, 10:33 AM
you do realize what a huge pipe dream this is. This will cost the average taxpayer more money. This will provide the average American with less health coverage. This will make the medical companies insanely rich as well.

I often hear the argument that our insurance has deals in place with the medical companies and that a lot of times the prices are negotiated much higher than they should be. However, you have not seen costly until you see how the US government negotiates it's healthcare. There is a lot of socialized healthcare in the US if you really cannot afford it, however the prices we pay as tax payers would amaze you. I was reading somewhere that some breathing tube that is used for many procedures is negotiated to rent for like 3000$ a day. However it could be bought for half that price. The average patient uses it for three days, thus our government has negotiated paying more then six times what it is worth and not seeing anything at the end.

AND WE REALLY WANT THEM HANDLING IT ALL. Look around the world where there is socialized healthcare. Tell me one country that is not losing benefits. Show me one country where their health costs are not rising. Do I think our system is great...no. But I do not want some politicians negotiating some back room deals that will shoot our country in the foot. There is other things we can do without completely revamping our system.

datafreak
08-13-2008, 10:50 AM
Like what, Blue?

Bluemyboy
08-13-2008, 11:05 AM
well for starters, educating people about the programs we offer now. Anyone who does not have insurance can get healthcare in America.

In effect all Obama wants to do is turn the responsibility of setting prices to the government. This is not going to expand coverage or anything like that, it will just increase prices in the overall picture, but make us feel better because we think everyone is now being taken care of.

The government already controls a huge amount of the healthcare in the US, and by in large they are not much better, and often times much worse then private insurance companies. Even the private sectors have tons of oversight from the government. We cannot fix our roads, yet we are going to trust some budget and prices negotiated by our govt. It is no wonder that so many people come down from Canada to have procedures done.

Another thing to consider since it has been proven that wait times are longer and that incentive for technology development decreases, how many people have died waiting for a treatment or procedure. And how many new inventions have not come around yet due to less incentive.