What Would Democrats Do Differently?

[paineinthearse]

http://www.massdems.org/hotissues/mdppr_113_bayliss.htm

Posted in full with permission.

What Would Democrats Do Differently?
February 21, 2006
Gloucester Daily Times
By Catherine Bayliss

Many voters are-EC2asy about the current state of our union.

They may differ on which issues are the most pressing, but concerns are frequently expressed about medical insurance, the cost of living, the war, public schools, college affordability, retirement security, environmental protection, civil liberties, jobs, and the budget deficit –even about the President's idea of national security.

Since the 1980s, our government has been tilting Republican. Now that Republicans control the Presidency, Congress, and Supreme Court, our ship of state is under the command of the Republican Party.

Republicans hold the majority of state governorships, including our own.

When we review the state of our union, we're looking at a vessel foundering under Republican philosophy: that private incentives are the automatic solution of most of society's problems.

It's fair to ask whether -- if Democrats were in control -- anything would be different.

To forecast what any candidate will accomplish when elected, we should look at the basic philosophy of his or her political party, past accomplishments of that party, other political forces, and the public's concerns – as well as the individual candidate's experience and talents.

The philosophy of the Democratic Party can be summed up as working for the common good . That's why Democrats were responsible for virtually all advances on behalf of America 's people during the 20th century: Social Security, minimum wage, college loan programs, unemployment insurance, federal oversight of food and drug safety, Medicare, Civil Rights…

Each of these steps forward was under a Democratic President and Congress. Even then it was difficult to achieve these basic protections. There is no guarantee that they will be preserved competently (let alone strengthened) by those whose party opposed them from the start.

So what would Democrats do right now?

Since space is limited, let's take just one issue of concern: health insurance.

If we had had a Democratic President and Congress for the past 6 years (that is, if the prosperous Clinton years had been followed by Democratic President Gore, Tom DeLay hadn't engineered a Republican takeover of the House of Representatives, etc.) we would now be on our way to health care for all Americans as a basic right.

Here are some reasons that this would become a reality, after so many years that champions like Democratic Senator Ted Kennedy have been advocating sensible solutions, against vociferous Republican opposition.

* The public is acutely aware of the crisis, because premiums are escalating, many of us don't have coverage, or we have insurance only for catastrophic illness. It's taking longer to get appointments, many hospitals have closed, and there's a shortage of nursing care.

* The medical establishment – hospitals and doctors, who in the past opposed Democratic proposals to expand access – now recognizes that the tangled web of incompatible insurance plans, layers of red tape, and “free” care doesn't work.

* Employers (from corporations to small businesses to local government) cannot keep paying giant insurance increases, in which the price of pharmaceuticals plays a major role. Health care in the US takes a greater share of economic resources than it does in other advanced countries. We don't do as good a job of preventing illness as many other countries. Our infant mortality statistics are shameful.

* Democrats are responsible for our elders' access to hospital and medical care, as a result of the Medicare program enacted under Democratic President Johnson and a Democratic Congress. Unlike the new Republican drug plan, which private insurers and the drug industry helped design, Medicare is – like Social Security - administratively efficient.

Because health care is truly in a crisis, both Democrats and Republicans are talking about it.

But Democratic proposals for fixing the mess will be very different from Republican proposals.

Given our basic philosophy and past achievements, you can be sure that Democrats' priority will be for the common good: emphasis on access to preventive care (which enhances the quality of our lives and saves money in the long run), decent medical treatment for all Americans, and a single-payer system to eliminate administrative waste – that is, the best overall solution for our whole society.

Our steps toward a comprehensive solution will be dramatically different in design from the new Republican Medicare drug plan, with its reliance on countless private insurers, expensive layers of paperwork, a prohibition against bargaining with drug companies, and the “doughnut hole” gap.

The Democratic Party and the Republican Party are very different in their philosophies. It's important for voters to decide which set of values they prefer.

Catherine Bayliss is chair of the Gloucester Democratic City Committee and a member of the Democratic State Committee.

[BeFree]

1. Is the Question...

...what would our world be like today if the elections had not been stolen from first, Gore, then Kerry?

Because if it is, here's a few things that would be different:

The People of NOLA woudl not have suffered so much

We would not have invaded Iraq

Osama bin forgotten would be dead and buried

The nation would have many forms of alternative energies already inline, and Global Climate Change would be an issue, not denied, but getting fixed

______________

And that's just the short list.

[roseBudd]

2. MEMME: Republicans can't govern because they don't believe in government

[yurbud]

3. Read the DLC website and you'll see that they want market based

health care and bend over backwards to avoid saying insurance companies are screwing the rest of us including other businesses.