Democratic Party Platform Committee Approves Set of Principles That Includes Commitment To Ensure All U.S. Residents Have ‘Guaranteed’ Access to Affordable Health Care

The 186-member platform committee of the Democratic National Committee on Saturday in Pittsburgh voted to approve a 51-page platform that includes "guaranteed" access to affordable health care, the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette reports (O'Toole, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, 8/9). The platform does not mention an individual health insurance mandate but acknowledges that "there are different approaches within the Democratic Party about how best to achieve the commitment of universal coverage" (Nicholas, Los Angeles Times, 8/10).

According to the platform, Democrats are "united behind a commitment that every American man, woman and child be guaranteed to have affordable, comprehensive health care" (Woodward, AP/San Francisco Chronicle, 8/10). The platform also states, "Coverage should be made affordable for all Americans with direct financial assistance through tax credits and other means," adding, "As affordable coverage is made available, individuals should purchase health insurance and take steps to lead healthy lives." In addition, the platform calls for a tax credit to help small businesses provide health insurance for employees (Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, 8/9).

Final approval of the platform will occur later this month at the Democratic National Convention in Denver (Los Angeles Times, 8/10). Party platforms "are typically given little attention after they are adopted," but the "party's decision to embrace guaranteed health care is bound to become a leading yardstick by which [Illinois Sen. Barak] Obama's (D) presidency will be measured if he wins in November," according to the AP/San Francisco Chronicle (AP/San Francisco Chronicle, 8/10).

McCain No Longer Supports Cigarette Tax Increase
In other election news, the campaign of presumptive Republican presidential nominee Sen. John McCain (Ariz.) has decided not to support a bill he proposed in 1998 that would have increased the federal cigarette tax, allowed FDA to regulate tobacco products, and required the tobacco industry to finance anti-smoking programs and settle a lawsuit filed by states, Roll Call reports. The legislation, which died on the Senate floor, would have provided the federal government with an additional $516 billion in tax revenue over 25 years. According to Roll Call, McCain, "whose credentials as a tax cutter are suspect among many on the right, was the author and driver of the bill," but "leading conservatives today are generally willing to forgive the Arizona senator for what they view as his transgression on the tobacco measure."

McCain senior economic adviser Douglas Holtz-Eakin last week declined to comment directly on whether the senator still supports the legislation but said that he does not favor an increase in the federal cigarette tax. The bill "was multidimensional," Holtz-Eakin said, adding, "We can't turn back the clock" and "take a bill from that era and put it in modern times" (Koffler, Roll Call, 8/11).

Editorial, Opinion Pieces
Summaries of an editorial and several opinion pieces related to health care in the presidential election appear below.

• Michael Kinsley, New York Times: "The purpose of a party platform is pandering ... to the faithful, under the assumption that only they will read it," and the Democratic Party platform includes a large amount of "code" language on health care and other issues, Time columnist Kinsley writes in a Times opinion piece. According to Kinsley, the plank on health care contains "mystery phrases that suggest a triumph for one side in some obscure policy battle." Kinsley writes that, amid a "frenzy of health care promises -- basically, after the plan is fully implemented in 2050, no one will be permitted to get sick -- the Democrats advocate 'creating a generic pathway for biologic drugs.'" He adds, "Whether this is a triumph for health and common sense or the miserable handiwork of a drug industry lobbyist (or both!), I have no idea." In addition, although "ordinarily it is not possible to overuse the word 'American' or to overpraise this great country and its magnificent people ... the Democrats may have found a way in promising a health care system that is 'uniquely American,'" Kinsley writes, adding, "A uniquely American health care system is what we've got" (Kinsley, New York Times, 8/10).
  
  
• Paul Krugman, New York Times: The platform states that Democrats support access to health care for all U.S. residents, but whether Democrats can "deliver on that commitment" remains undetermined, Times columnist Krugman writes. In "principle, it should be easy," Krugman writes, adding, "In practice, supporters of health care reform, myself included, will be hanging on by their fingernails until legislation is actually passed." According to Krugman, the "easy" part about "guaranteed health care for all" is that "we know that it's economically feasible," as "every wealthy country except the United States already has some form of guaranteed health care." He adds that the "politics of guaranteed care are also easy, at least in one sense: if the Democrats do manage to establish a system of universal coverage, the nation will love it." However, Krugman writes, "it's hard to get universal care established in the first place" because of "three big hurdles." Democrats must win the election, "overcome the public's fear of change" and maintain focus on health care amid the "many problems crying out for solutions," according to Krugman (Krugman, New York Times, 8/11).
  
  
• Pittsburgh Post-Gazette: Both of the major presidential candidates will "move toward the political center" as the election nears, but, "on health care, the contrasts are stark and indicate the difference between the two candidates -- Obama is all about mandates, while McCain relies more on market forces," according to a Post-Gazette editorial. The editorial states, "How the two major parties view health care points to a difference in basic philosophy," as "Democratic plans stressed providing increased, preferably universal, access to health care, while GOP proposals addressed costs, believing more Americans could get health insurance if health care was more affordable." The Obama health care proposal has a number of problems, the editorial states. "Employer mandates also would do little to address the cost of health care" and "likely would boost the prices charged by insurance companies and health care providers," according to the editorial. In addition, "government mandates to require health coverage is mission creep," the editorial states, adding, "That's when bureaucrats and politicians see their meddling isn't producing the desired results (usually because it can't), so they pile on more mandates requiring more comprehensive coverage." The editorial states that Obama also "demonstrates bad judgment with his ideas on pharmaceutical pricing." The editorial concludes, "The way health care is provided in this country doesn't work well for everyone," but "improving it for those on the lower end of the economic ladder doesn't have to come at the cost of making it worse for everyone else" (Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, 8/10).
  
  
• Timothy Noah, Washington Post: The U.S. health care system will change during the next four years because the "current patchwork is coming apart at the seams," Noah, a senior writer at Slate, writes in a Post opinion piece. According to Noah, the conclusion by some observers that the "federal government -- which already provides taxpayer-funded health insurance to the elderly, the destitute and increasingly to minors -- should extend health care coverage to everyone" is "bulletproof" (Noah, Washington Post, 8/10).