2008 Democratic Party Platform Veers Far Left on Healthcare
Updated: Not Far Left Enough For Clinton Supporters!

The 186-member Democratic Party Platform Committee pulled together a draft platform this past week. There have been some interesting changes in the Democrats’ statement of principles since 2004. The change in healthcare is one of the largest leftward shifts. As the presumptive nominee, the Obama campaign was allowed to direct most of the platform.

In 2004 the grand plan was to give healthcare tax credits and for government to "pick[] up the tab for the highest-cost medical cases." This year, they still want to give healthcare tax credits, but they also want to forbid "insurance discrimination." They write that "Health insurance plans should accept all applicants and be prohibited from charging different prices based on pre-existing conditions."

As any economist will tell you, this would represent the end of the health insurance industry as we know it. Unlike every other business in the U.S., insurers would be forced to do business with people, whether they want to or not. Premiums for everyone would rise, quality of care would fall. Of course, the long-term goal of the far left is to trash the health insurance industry so that a glorious nationalized healthcare system can take its place.

As they do every four years, the committee fatuously claims that Democrats will be able to magically conjure up savings by "cutting costs and eliminating waste." This year they even put a number to it and say that the average family will save "up to $2,500 per year." They got that number by adding the IQ of everyone on the committee.*

The draft platform is here.

UPDATE: Clinton supporters are grousing that the draft platform does not promise mandatory universal coverage at government expense, which is what Clinton pledged in the primary. No Quarters (No Links!) leads the charge with this whine which fairly screams for carmel-covered popcorn:

That’s pretty easy when the candidate breaks election laws like having people INSIDE polling places with literature, or having people ripping down Clinton signs outside polling places, as well as ripping INTO Clinton supporters; or locking out the opponent’s supporters; or stealing packets to get signatures of people NOT in the caucus meeting, etc., etc.); treating states that were more for Clinton disparately from other states in the same situation; and STEALING VOTES FROM ONE CANDIDATE TO GIVE TO ANOTHER NOT ON THE BALLOT are just a FEW of the reasons we are angry.

If Hillary Clinton had lost fair and square, we would accept that. It was that the FIX seemed to be (and SEEMS to be) in for this sham of a candidate. THAT is why we are angry, Ms. Wheaton (of the NY Times). Try actually doing some real journalism next time, will ya??

Losers can't be choosers.

*Lame joke adjusted to make it clearer.

posted by Gabriel Malor at 12:39 PM

| Access Comments