How do the current Dem health positions reflect the platform they were elected on?

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

http://www.democrats.org/a/party/platform.html
start on page 9 (page 11 of the PDF)

Does the party in general have SOME sort of obligation to carry through with the positions they presented as representational of the Party as a whole during the last election? You remember - that election that turned 9 red states blue and that gave the Dems the White House, the Senate and the Congress?

The healthcare platform of the Democratic Party included:

*"Covering all" described as a moral imperative
*"No insurance discrimination"
*The statement "premiums collected by insurers should be dedicated primarily to care, not profits"
*A "public plan"
*Negotiation of drug prices
*permitting re-importation of drugs

It's not like all these particulars weren't discussed and disclosed fully, in debates, on websites, town halls, etc. during the election. I didn't see an asterisk in that platform that said "Never mind, we're going to ask the Republicans what they want."

If a healthcare plan is passed that does not strongly resemble the one seemingly described above, I will be extremely angry. I'll rally for passage of a "Lemon Law" that pertains to political parties.



*************************************************************************************************************************************
This thread is the result of DU'er mascarax's comment in this thread
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x6444381

[baltoga]

1. Obligations and reality are sometimes different

No doubt the current health plan under debate includes many of the objectives of the health-care platform. However, if reality states you can get 80% now and 20% later then I say go for it.

[Laelth]

4. Welcome to DU.

Forgive those of us on the left who expect our Party to do what it promises to do. If it does not, even though we gave it the Presidency and both houses of Congress, you will also forgive us if we are very angry and abandon the Party in droves.

:dem:

-Laelth

[sinkingfeeling]

2. Yes, between the various Democratic-sponsored drafts, all of those are covered.

[Laelth]

3. Negotiating drug prices? Re-importation of drugs?

Where are those? Not in any of the five bills that are truly under consideration in Congress.

And nobody believes the "individual mandate" will result in universal coverage. People will be forced to disobey the law. It happened in Mass., and it will happen across the U.S.

You are either ill-informed or deceptively spinning.

:dem:

-Laelth

[sinkingfeeling]

5. Well, I listened what Anthony Weiner said.

Democrats are circulating an amendment to the health care overhaul that contains a surprise for the pharmaceutical industry.

It allows CMS – the Medicare and Medicaid center – to negotiate Medicare Part D prescription drug prices directly with companies, according to congressional aides and industry sources.
Sponsors – for now – include Democrats Jan Schakowsky of Illinois and Anthony Weiner of New York.



http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2009/07/31/negotiation-of-medicare-drug-prices-back-for-now/


http://blogs.wsj.com/health/2009/08/31/medicare-drug-benefit-lower-total-costs-but-higher-premiums/

The gurus over at the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office just ran the numbers on proposed changes to Medicare Part D under HR 3200, the big health care bill from House Democrats. The conclusion: If the bill were to become law (a big if at this point), seniors’ average total spending on prescription drugs would decrease, but their premiums would rise.

The bill would phase out the “doughnut hole” that now leaves beneficiaries on the hook for annual prescription drug costs between about $2,700 and $4,300 per year. That would mean big savings for those beneficiaries who now get stuck with the bill.


Who's ill-informed?

[Laelth]

6. Obviously me.

So you're spinning. :)

You think that amendment is seriously being considered? I'd love to see it happen, but I doubt it will make it into the final bill.

Sill no mention of re-importation. And you know universal coverage is impossible with the individual mandate. Every study says so.

So spin away, but thanks for the useful info.

:dem:

-Laelth

[sinkingfeeling]

7. Who said that mandating individual coverage would get us to universal coverage? You seem to want to

dis the work that is being done. I have sat in on several telephone townhalls for people who aren't my reps to hear what was being discussed. One was Rep. Mike Ross, head of the Blue Dogs, and he insisted that one of the key proposals was to have direct drug negotiations for all federal health programs. And to end the 'donut hole'.

I don't know why re-importation would be needed if we had the power to negotiate prices. The advantage in getting a drug from Canada or Mexico is that it's the same drug that was exported out under a nationally negotiated price. If the USA did the same, then why would we even need to re-import.

[Laelth]

8. You said in Post #2, above, that "all of those are covered."

Universal coverage is "one of those" (items in the Party platform). The five bills that are seriously being considered in Congress will not achieve universal coverage, and no one believes that they will.

I find our Party's decision to abandon a plank of its platform and not advance a plan that will achieve universal coverage to be disappointing, to say the least.

:dem:

-Laelth

[sinkingfeeling]

9. Here's what listed in the OP and the Democratic platform. Where's the magical word, "universal"?

*"Covering all" described as a moral imperative
*"No insurance discrimination"
*The statement "premiums collected by insurers should be dedicated primarily to care, not profits"
*A "public plan"
*Negotiation of drug prices
*permitting re-importation of drugs

I just read the 2008 Democratic Platform document here. And no where does it mention universal healthcare in the plank, pages 9 through 13.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/5580817/2008-Democratic-Party-Platform-Renewing-Americas-Promise

[Laelth]

10. I read the words "covering all" and guessed that meant "universal."

Shame on me. I bow to your superior reading skills.

:dem:

-Laelth