Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: On liberal "purity". [View all]ProSense
(116,464 posts)29. I read it:
Health Care
In 1975, national health expenditures averaged $547 per personan almost 40 per cent increase in four years. Inflation and recession have combined to erode the effectiveness of the Medicare and Medicaid programs.
An increasingly high proportion of health costs have been shifted back to the elderly. An increasing Republican emphasis on restricting eligibility and services is emasculating basic medical care for older citizens who cannot meet the rising costs of good health.
We need a comprehensive national health insurance system with universal and mandatory coverage. Such a national health insurance system should be financed by a combination of employer-employee shared payroll taxes and general tax revenues. Consideration should be given to developing a means of support for national health insurance that taxes all forms of economic income. We must achieve all that is practical while we strive for what is ideal, taking intelligent steps to make adequate health services a right for all our people. As resources permit, this system should not discriminate against the mentally ill.
Maximum personal interrelationships between patients and their physicians should be preserved. We should experiment with new forms of medical care delivery to mold a national health policy that will meet our needs in a fiscally responsible manner.
We must shift our emphasis in both private and public health care away from hospitalization and acute-care services to preventive medicine and the early detection of the major cripplers and killers of the American people. We further support increased federal aid to the government laboratories as well as private institutions to seek the cure to heart disease, cancer, sickle cell anemia, paralysis from spinal cord injury, drug addiction and other such afflictions.
National health insurance must also bring about a more responsive consumer-oriented system of health care delivery. Incentives must be used to increase the number of primary health care providers, and shift emphasis away from limited-application, technology-intensive programs. By reducing the barriers to primary preventive care, we can lower the need for costly hospitalization. Communities must be encouraged to avoid duplication of expensive technologies and meet the genuine needs of their populations. The development of community health centers must be resumed. We must develop new health careers, and promote a better distribution of health care professionals, including the more efficient use of paramedics. All levels of government should concern themselves with increasing the number of doctors and para-medical personnel in the field of primary health care.
A further need is the comprehensive treatment of mental illness, including the development of Community Mental Health Centers that provide comprehensive social services not only to alleviate, but to prevent mental stresses resulting from social isolation and economic dislocation. Of particular importance is improved access to the health care system by underserved population groups.
We must have national health insurance with strong built-in cost and quality controls. Rates for institutional care and physicians' services should be set in advance, prospectively. Alternative approaches to health care delivery, based on prepayment financing, should be encouraged and developed.
<...>
In 1975, national health expenditures averaged $547 per personan almost 40 per cent increase in four years. Inflation and recession have combined to erode the effectiveness of the Medicare and Medicaid programs.
An increasingly high proportion of health costs have been shifted back to the elderly. An increasing Republican emphasis on restricting eligibility and services is emasculating basic medical care for older citizens who cannot meet the rising costs of good health.
We need a comprehensive national health insurance system with universal and mandatory coverage. Such a national health insurance system should be financed by a combination of employer-employee shared payroll taxes and general tax revenues. Consideration should be given to developing a means of support for national health insurance that taxes all forms of economic income. We must achieve all that is practical while we strive for what is ideal, taking intelligent steps to make adequate health services a right for all our people. As resources permit, this system should not discriminate against the mentally ill.
Maximum personal interrelationships between patients and their physicians should be preserved. We should experiment with new forms of medical care delivery to mold a national health policy that will meet our needs in a fiscally responsible manner.
We must shift our emphasis in both private and public health care away from hospitalization and acute-care services to preventive medicine and the early detection of the major cripplers and killers of the American people. We further support increased federal aid to the government laboratories as well as private institutions to seek the cure to heart disease, cancer, sickle cell anemia, paralysis from spinal cord injury, drug addiction and other such afflictions.
National health insurance must also bring about a more responsive consumer-oriented system of health care delivery. Incentives must be used to increase the number of primary health care providers, and shift emphasis away from limited-application, technology-intensive programs. By reducing the barriers to primary preventive care, we can lower the need for costly hospitalization. Communities must be encouraged to avoid duplication of expensive technologies and meet the genuine needs of their populations. The development of community health centers must be resumed. We must develop new health careers, and promote a better distribution of health care professionals, including the more efficient use of paramedics. All levels of government should concern themselves with increasing the number of doctors and para-medical personnel in the field of primary health care.
A further need is the comprehensive treatment of mental illness, including the development of Community Mental Health Centers that provide comprehensive social services not only to alleviate, but to prevent mental stresses resulting from social isolation and economic dislocation. Of particular importance is improved access to the health care system by underserved population groups.
We must have national health insurance with strong built-in cost and quality controls. Rates for institutional care and physicians' services should be set in advance, prospectively. Alternative approaches to health care delivery, based on prepayment financing, should be encouraged and developed.
<...>
As I said, a premise is not the same as a law, and now health care is the law of the land. There is actual reform in place, something tangible to be improved upon.
That's huge.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
138 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
dems have moved so far to the right that center right dems are now considered progressive lol nt
msongs
Dec 2012
#1
Yes, it is about winning. You and I may have little in common but I know about one
banned from Kos
Dec 2012
#48
You can keep lunatics out of the WH by running progressive candidates. This country is .
sabrina 1
Dec 2012
#115
It isn't winning anything if you just make it to the Oval Office and then give the other side
sabrina 1
Dec 2012
#114
I wouldn't LOL. I *was* a center Right Dem in 76. And I *am* now considered staunchly Left.
ieoeja
Dec 2012
#102
"At least FDR limited his civil rights violation to a particular ethnic group"...
SidDithers
Dec 2012
#11
There seem to be several people on this board who can only defend Obama's positions
dflprincess
Dec 2012
#128
I suggest you re-read that part of the '76 Democratic party platform concerning health care,
MadHound
Dec 2012
#23
The Constitution always applies to the US Government, it is the basis of it's authority.
TheKentuckian
Dec 2012
#36
"Obama killed one POS jihadist American citizen while he was in Yemen plotting attacks on the USA"
Liberal_Dog
Dec 2012
#57
FDR over looked the excesses of Dixiecrats and failed to integrate the armed forces.
bluestate10
Dec 2012
#62
Who knows what bending the current President would do in a similar spot and public sentiment?
TheKentuckian
Dec 2012
#27
2.3 billion trees planted, hundreds of state parks created, U.S. topsoil saved...
WorseBeforeBetter
Dec 2012
#56
Excellent post as always Octafish. You are one of the people who attract Democrats to this forum
sabrina 1
Dec 2012
#118
Don't you have anything to say about politics? Did you know that this is a political forum?
sabrina 1
Dec 2012
#116
Yes, I did. I read books too, many way longer than the WCR, I have even read whole series of
sabrina 1
Dec 2012
#127
Very interesting. I wonder if he knows that we interred Muslims during the Bush years, not just thos
sabrina 1
Dec 2012
#129
What is 'purity'? I see that talking point all the time but never get an answer as to what it means
sabrina 1
Dec 2012
#130
You nailed it. It's the Democratic Party that has moved to the right, so far
forestpath
Dec 2012
#24
he'll browbeat as many democrats out of the party as he can on the way to viccctorrryyyy!
dionysus
Dec 2012
#63
See, you don't 'move the party' what you do it let people come over to the party.
Bluenorthwest
Dec 2012
#89
Better than having them in the Party. They LOST remember? Now they are getting smart, well
sabrina 1
Dec 2012
#131
Better to be defeated without them than surrender with them and drug along for a ride
TheKentuckian
Dec 2012
#52
Yeah, here's the thing about 'pragmatists'. That is a term of art that is spoiled rotten.
Bluenorthwest
Dec 2012
#90
This country is overwhelmingly Progressive on the issues. We don't have to worry about
sabrina 1
Dec 2012
#120
I don't disagree with anything you said. I think there is a lot of shouting past each other
sabrina 1
Dec 2012
#138
no - there are plenty of radical left on DU. what you have done is buy into the right wing rhetoric
pasto76
Dec 2012
#42
Don't forget cuts to SS, Medicare and Medicaid. Those poor, starving Wall Street criminals
sabrina 1
Dec 2012
#119
Ms. Hathaway, if yer far to the left of us Democrats, then us Democrats must have become republicans
Zorra
Dec 2012
#82
Nance, you're supposed to lay off the italics so we can pretend not to know it's you.
LeftyMom
Dec 2012
#99