by Mark Silva
Sen. Hillary Clinton wants her health care agenda included in the platform of the party that nominates Sen. Barack Obama for the presidency, and the platform committee of the Democratic National Committee has started playing with the wording.
The committee charged with crafting a platform for the Democrats agreed today in Cleveland to call health care "a shared responsibility between employers, workers, insurers, providers and government. All Americans should have coverage they can afford."
For the 47 million Americans who are uninsured, both Clinton and Obama have campaigned for "universal health care,'' though in the primary contest Clinton claimed that Obama's plans would leave a lot of people uncovered.
Michael Yaki, an Obama aide who directed the platform committee meetings this weekend, calls the language a recognition there may be more than one way to achieve the shared goal of universal coverage.
""There's no real consensus yet on which is the best health care reform to do other than we are committed to universality and we're committed to getting there," Yaki said. "We believe that as you make health care more affordable, people will be able to buy health care -- that's the basic principle. How we get there is a matter of the legislative process."
Chris Jennings, a Clinton backer and drafting committee member, lobbied for stronger language in the interest of promoting Clinton's plan, particularly on the question of that "shared responsibility."
""It was important that that was stated quite clearly in the platform," said Jennings, who served as health care adviser to former President Clinton. He calls the committee's first steps "an honorable accommodation that illustrates a commitment to unity."
The drafting committee met privately for more than two hours over breakfast today, emerging with a draft to be approved Saturday when the full platform committee meets in Pittsburgh. The final proposal will go to the Democratic convention starting Aug. 25 in Denver.
"While there are differing approaches within the party about how best to achieve the commitment of universal coverage, we stand united to achieve this fundamental objective through the legislative process," the draft states.
The Associated Press contributed to this report.







Comments
Yes, I can't wait to see this. A train reck waiting to happen
VJ Machiavelli
http://www.vjmachiavelli.blogspot.com
Posted by: VJ Machiavelli | August 3, 2008 7:18 PM
Anyone who opposes providing health care for ALL Americans, in the richest country in the world, is simply immoral and without a soul. They can throw around words like "socialist" and "freedom" and "liberty", but when a person is diagnosed with cancer, alzheimer's or some other terminal disease, the most important freedom to that person is to receive the care he or she needs without having to battle insurance companies while fighting for his or her life. I have no respect for anyone who opposes universal health care. Such an individual is simply irredeemable.
Posted by: Patrick | August 3, 2008 7:19 PM
"Shared responsibility"--this election's euphemism for "hike our taxes".
Posted by: Bruce | August 3, 2008 7:30 PM
What's next ...Universal car payments for the losers that dropped out of high school and bought a car they can't afford.
Marxism 101 is the democrat agenda to get votes.
Paulo
Posted by: Paulo | August 3, 2008 8:20 PM
Paulo - you're heartless
Bruce - Hike our taxes? you are already paying for everyone's healthcare. People with no insurance routinely go to the emergency room as that is their only recourse
"Shared Responsibility" would not only widen the risk pool but make cheaper medical care available for the ones who currently use the emergency room then dodge the bills.
Posted by: Rick | August 3, 2008 9:01 PM
An event has occurred that surpasses all this, at least today.
-
A. Solzhenitsyn has died at age 89.
-
A writer of monumental importance, he is perhaps the one individual most responsible for the defeat of the bad old Soviet Union.
RIP great sir; Your works will stand forever.
Posted by: C.Morris | August 3, 2008 9:27 PM
We have a ruined economy, McCain claims that Obama will raise taxes when in fact he will END all income taxes for the senior citizen on social security and for the 10 million who are below the federal poverty level. And they call him a socialist, because he intends to make sure that the least of us have medical coverage, instead of squandering our resources on Iraq.
And oh yes, about that anthrax attack that John McCain went on Letterman and claimed he had a SOURCE who said the attack was by the IRAQI''s, yes WMDs from the IRAQI''s, it was actually made and distributed from a US fort in Maryland. WHO IS THE WHITE HOUSE SOURCE? That person committed treason. McCain is sheilding a person who committed treason. Would that be your president, your vice president? WHO IS BEING SHEILDED BY McCAIN? WHAT IS THE TRAITORs NAME? False propaganda for the purpose of leading the US into war is a crime.
Posted by: Bruce becker | August 3, 2008 9:34 PM
Well, they are sure didn't give the media any story here. This tid bit didn't explain a thing about the plan. All I recall is Obama saying he had a plan to make Mandatory health care. He said the prices would be low enough to be affordable.....hmmmm, then why would there be a need to MANDATE ?
Posted by: Shake the fence | August 3, 2008 9:52 PM
Patrick - Everyone has health CARE in this country, not health insurance. Should the gopv't provide housing for all, food for all, clothing for all, cars for all.
If you think health insurance is expensive now, wait until it becomes free.
Posted by: Terry | August 3, 2008 10:02 PM
Hillary loses again. She should kiss the democrats goodby and go out as an independent. Take all her support and run with it, so Obam loses.
Posted by: RFB | August 3, 2008 10:19 PM
Our large friend accept this easily.
see what they speak:
~~~Bigdaddymatch.com~~~
which is also a celebrity big people dating community for BBW, BHM, big
beautiful women with big boobs, big breasts and their loyalist!
Posted by: bbwofnanncy | August 3, 2008 10:46 PM
Bruce, somehow I get the impression you are a
"freelance independent contractor" who "manages" his tax return so as to not pay any tax, or not much, anyway.
This latest whiff of ash and CO2 from Mt. Hillary shows she's still actively in pursuit of a nomination in '12.
Team Barack has been so mannerly and well behaved toward the Goldwater Girl. Some of the strong supporters, I sense, would rather they would just "fix" her so she's a "Liddy Dole" type of Senator. I.e., one who keeps her mouth shut and is worried whether she'll be reelected. What was that law that said people like her reach their highest level of incompetence? It surely fits Ms. Hillary.
Posted by: ornery | August 3, 2008 10:55 PM
Paulo, son, you should get down on your benders and pray God you're never stricken with with MS, ALS, or a bus rendering you a quad.
I will guarantee you any insurance coverage you may have will be exhausted early on your ordeal, and then you'll bless FDR and the Social Security Act he initiated. Unless of course you're a Rockefeller. I've met a few of them, in the cousins generation, and they, better than you, know how blessed they are. Are you that blessed??
If not, may I suggest some humility and some fear of what may strike you
Posted by: ornery | August 3, 2008 11:27 PM
" A train wreck waiting to happen." Where have you been for the last 8 years ? The train is already wrecked and everybody in our nation knows it, but the Republicans, because they were at the controls !! They know it is wrecked, but they can't admit to the serious blunders that have caused it !! Why else would the McCain/ Graham's fear and smear campaign machine, be in full gear ? They want to distract the American voters into thinking there was no train wreck !! Are they in never-neverland or what ?!!
SUPPORT OUR TROOPS, BRING THEM HOME, ALIVE AND WHOLE. NOW.
Posted by: Don Fitzgerald, Chicago | August 4, 2008 12:08 AM
This article had no details in it what so ever. I am hoping that the Lib Media isn't handing us this as the final draft for information on his health care plan, because, it seems to me that I recall him talking about Mandatory Health care for all children. He talked of bringing down prices so it's affordable, and of course my problem at that time was >if you bring down prices so it's affordable why would you have to make it MANDATORY ha? Now, it's reading somewhat like it's going to be Hillary's Universal Plan, and I do recall some negotiations when she was pulling out of the race and Obama noted that she had them up against a fence or something. Maybe this was the deal they made?!
Hillary's was MANDATORY FOR EVERYONE. I've heard that it needs to be mandatory for them to have enough participants to drive down the price for everyone, but I won't be supporting MANDATORY HEALTH CARE any time soon. We shall see??????????????
Posted by: Shake the fence | August 4, 2008 5:36 AM
Bruce Becker, Obama wants ot end income taxes for all seniors on Social Security? That includes lots of seniors who are pretty well off, so isn't that cutting taxes on the rich?
The reality is that in 1993 the Democrats, with Al Gore casting the tie breaking vote, that voted to INCREASE taxes on our senior citizens.
Posted by: Green Trees | August 4, 2008 8:50 AM
Terry, try talking to the people that are turned away from emergency rooms because they don't have health insurance, and therefore they don't get HEALTH CARE! You are a gullible fool if you think everyone in this country has health care. People have to forego taking much needed medication because they need the money to buy food. Once again NO HEALTH CARE! So where did you get the dumb idea that everyone in this country has health care.
Posted by: RFB-IL | August 4, 2008 12:06 PM
Free health care? Only idiots think we're getting free health care if we go with universal healthcare. This is just one of typical scare tactics used by insurance companies to attack universal health care proposal.
I rather pay $300/month to US goverment through tax deduction knowning that 95 percent of this money will go to health care than only 60 percent if the money is paid to insurance companies.
Posted by: Ryan | August 4, 2008 12:45 PM
To: Patrick:
*
There is no talking sense to someone like you after you've wed yourself to a nearsighted idea and then wrapped yourself in a mantle of self-righteousness to avoid criticism. Telling us we are immoral for opposing an ill conceived plan certainly doesn't clear the way for any meaningful dialogue. It only makes you impervious to reason.
*
The truth be told, Barack Obama doesn't have a plan to provide health care to all Americans either. He wants to cover some Americans, but not all of them. As for those not covered, he would simply try to make health insurance more affordable. Hillary's plan doesn't provide for everyone either. Her plan would force everyone who can afford their own health care into the arms of the insurance industry. Only those who cannot afford to pay for their own health care insurance would be given government handouts. The only candidate who suggested a universal health care plan (I believe) was Dennis Kucinich. He wanted to make Medicare universal. I guess that means you must think Barack and Hillary are "simply immoral and without a soul" too.
*
Other, rational factors exist to make a reasonable person oppose a national commitment to universal health care. Try, for starters, the fact that our government is already up to its eyeballs in debt; so much so, that it pays out one tenth of its budget for debt service alone. Add to that the fact that the federal government's finances are already on the road to ruin because of Social Security benefits it must pay out for which no money exists. As the population gets older, fewer and fewer people are paying into the system. We might end up trillions more in debt over Social Security if we don't figure out more ways to raise revenue and/or cut Social Security spending (or spending someplace else).
*
And do you know why we are in this predicament? I will tell you. We are in this predicament because the federal government takes all Social Security money not used to pay claims, buys bonds with the money (backed only with its promise to repay) and then transfers the money to the general fund for Congress to spend. In other words, the federal government borrows the money and leaves IOUs. There is no fungible money left in the Social Security Trust Fund, and future taxpayers will have to pay the debt they and others have already paid once. The foregoing irresponsible financial practices of the federal government (if you can call them such), and those of the Federal Reserve Bank, are the cause of the inflation and Dollar devaluation from which we now suffer. Creating money out of thin air - as the federal government and FRB do by making loans on paper - is, by definition, inflationary. Adding more debt to the federal government is only going to make things more expensive because it will add to inflation as well as to the federal government's budget obligations.
*
And you want to add another layer of government committing the nation to a permanent health care system with a $100 billion to $150 billion price tag per year? Where do you propose we get that kind of money? This kind of spending is the reason the federal government is already in the red. Undoing Bush's so-called tax cuts for the rich isn't going to pay for it; and neither will diverting the money we now use to fund the war in Iraq. We are already going deeply into debt for the war in Iraq. Shifting money from Iraq to domestic spending isn't going to pay for anything. It will just make us go deeply into debt for domestic welfare-state programs instead of foreign wars. That's not better. The bottom line, Patrick, is that we cannot afford it as long as the federal government continues to operate this way. That is, unless you want to see substantial tax increases across the board. If you want to pay half your paycheck in taxes just to pay for health insurance (as they do elsewhere in the world), we might be able to get by. That is the only realistic way we will make this "richest country" afford universal health care.
*
Furthermore, aside from the tax hits we will all have to take (realistically), we still have the problem of dealing with insurance companies under Hillary-care and, probably, BHO-care as well. The added cost in taxes under the proposed systems will only go to cover subsidized premiums for the poor. Those who do not financially qualify for the subsidized premiums will be forced - I repeat, forced - to buy their own health care insurance in an unregulated market. Thus, aside from the constitutional problems created by compelling people to enter into contracts for services they may not want (cf. the 5th Amendment "taking" clause), and entirely aside from the price tag that awaits us for health care subsidies - we will still be saddled with having to pay for, haggle with, beg and scream at tight fisted insurance companies that don't want to pay coverage for the sick and dying. We will get precisely what you said we should not have. That is not health care. And then, when the insurance companies all raise their prices (because they can and they haven't promised not to), we will all howl. To me, it is the height of irony, if not outright hypocrisy, for pseudo-liberals to go along, sheep-like, with plans like Hillary-care or BHO-care that depend in large part on the largesse and altruism of every pseudo-liberal's arch-enemy: Corporate America.
*
And yes, I also have something to say about the morality the situation. I find it immoral when people want to live off of others without first trying to support themselves. I find it immoral for politicians to pander to those who want the government to plunder one segment of society for their benefit. A regular citizen would go to jail if he or she did privately half of what the federal government does to American citizens with regard to money. It doesn't make it moral for the federal government to do it simply because it is a government. I also find it immoral when people don't want to follow the rules. The Constitution, for example, embodies the basic rules we all expect the government to follow. Those basic rules do not authorize the federal government to run a universal health care system. To operate such a system would require an amendment to the Constitution. Thus, it is immoral and dishonest for either Hillary or BHO to attempt to create a federally operated health care system. As for you: To thine own self be true.
Posted by: John W. | August 4, 2008 2:50 PM
AARP has launched Divided We Fail to raise the voices of millions of Americans who believe that health care and life-time financial security are the most pressing domestic issues facing our nation. Learn the issues, add your voice and find out how you can get involved at www.dividedwefail.org
Posted by: Ken Nickell | August 4, 2008 4:28 PM
RFB - Are you telling me if you were to go to an energency room with a gun shot wound with no insurance - the hospital would turn you away?
Posted by: Terry | August 4, 2008 8:47 PM
Republicans' answer to all the country's pressing problems:
1. Soylent Green
2. Cling to guns and religion
3. Force the government to bail out the corporations that failed to police themselves
3. Allow corporations to run the country and "police themselves"
4. Wag the Dog
5. Wrap yourself in the flag
6. Display a "support the troops" bumber sticker
7. build your own back yard bunker
8. Display the ten commandments at the courthouse
9. Lower taxes for the rich
10. Trickle down and "charge it"
Posted by: the rise and fall of the American Empire | August 4, 2008 10:15 PM
Hey American Empire-the only way Soylent Green is going to happen is if they don't let us drill here and prices keep going up, then we'll have a nice organic liberal treat for all who are hungry ha ha ha.
Posted by: Shake the fence | August 5, 2008 5:45 AM