Healthcare Policy. The DFL backs an approach already supported by a large portion of the public, The Minnesota Health Plan. The Plan, once enacted via DFL and bipartisan backing, would be a unified statewide plan to cover all medical needs of Minnesotans.
Under the Plan, patients could see the medical providers they choose, and Plan coverage would not end or gap for persons losing or switching jobs. Currently licensed doctors and medical professionals would remain at the same hospitals and clinics, serving regular enrolled patients, but payments covering all costs would be made by the Plan, with every Minnesotan covered.
The Plan would be funded by all Minnesotans based on ability to pay, and would replace premiums currently paid by employees and employers, as well as all co-payments, deductibles, and payments for care of the uninsured or under-insured. Other costs of government health care programs would be consolidated into the Plan. All costs would be contained, and covered.
The Plan will cover more Minnesotans at significantly less expense than our current system because every dollar would go to provision of care without excessive leakage via outlandish corporate profits or multi-million dollar CEO salaries. By providing full ranging care to everyone, the Plan would improve the overall health of Minnesota’s population and lead to higher economic productivity. With a DFL policy focused upon making the Plan emphasis upon preventative medicine and reliable early diagnosis and prompt cure, the DFL can exert positive pressures against unnecessary, wasteful expenses without any sacrifice in quality of care.
The paragraphs are separable and can be integrated with other proposed platform text, with others within the party to perform that task in preparing things to be presented at future DFL conventions. The second item covers matters related to but apart from detailed aspects of the Minnesota Health Plan.
Healthcare Policy. While the DFL strongly backs the Minnesota Health Plan, it recognizes that individuals may from time-to-time for personal reasons wish to carry extended coverage or coverage for unique services not initially covered by the Plan. Nothing should prevent private firms from selling extended coverage of a kind not within the Plan, unless and until the Plan may be amended to include such coverage. Extended coverage obtained outside the Plan would be free of constraints by government, with terms and conditions open to negotiation between buyer and seller.
DFL policy favors Minnesota and other States having an expressly stated option in any federal legislation passed allowing implementation of the Minnesota Health Plan or its substantial equivalent. DFL policy is that such an option should be free of federal mandates upon Minnesota, or on any other state enacting a comparable universal coverage plan, to have to participate in nationwide or regional private insurer pools, group cooperatives, or other federal alternatives to the Plan.
DFL policy is that no provision of law should stand in the way of family members making their private and personal decisions about family size or family expansion timing. All decisions on ways and means of exercise of such freedoms should be between physician and patient without interference by government.
DFL policy is that tort reform beyond already enacted Minnesota law would be counterproductive to the best interests of citizens because availability of tort remedy for medical errors and omissions is a strong positive force against occurrence of medical errors and omissions. Any contrary policy that might lessen safeguards the public has against medical negligence is viewed by the DFL as against the public interest.
The third item is as follows, but with the word "physician" changed in every instance to "licensed health care provider" or some shorter variant, the idea being that others in healthcare especially including nurses and counselors, have roles that also involve information exchange. The need for such a proposal goes back to a "gag order" that the first Bush president imposed by executive order, lifted by President Clinton, and then reimposed for foreign expenditure by the second Bush president and in January 2009 removed by President Obama. With that history of yin and yang on information flow we in caucus felt an explicit change, at the highest level, might be a good ultimate policy. With changed wording as noted:
Physician-Patient Constitutional Amendment. The DFL favors and will work legislatively and in public for passage of a U.S. Constitutional amendment:The federal government shall pass neither laws nor regulations impeding or constraining in any way free and open speech and exchange of information between a physician and a patient, nor shall the federal government withhold otherwise generally available funding from medical care providers based upon exchange of information or treatment decision making between a physician and a patient. This applies not only to general medical matters, but also to all forms of family planning and related matters of patient choice.
Furthermore, the DFL favors and shall work for passage of amendment of the Minnesota Constitution, with identical wording, except “Minnesota” substituted for “federal.”
Many in the GOP and at Tea Party rallies wanted non-interference between provider and patient, and this proposal should have their support by making it a constitutional provision, however, it might turn out that such a segment in part favors some forms of interference concerning family timing and size planning choices, whereas the DFL argaubly should show the intellectual consistency and honesty to condemn all such intrusions, without artificial exceptions or boundaries drawn.
Beyond the notes on general caucus feelings, proposed text is clear and self-explanatory.
The anticipation was that other precincts would be advancing parallel language, and the intent was to assure that one alternative form of wording for each thought should be assured, given that other precincts acted separately.
...............
Note - One resolution I do not have in full text form was handwritten at caucus, by consensus, and it proposed that it be DFL policy to opposed the unfunded mandates of "no child left behind" as counterproductive to learning and efficient operation of classrooms and all other learning situations, and as inflexible in its testing mandates with that being, as a policy matter, viewed as an ineffective measure of student learning effectiveness.
The exact text we chose was structrued differently, composed on the spot, but the gist of the text we wished to go to the next level of review is about as written above.
Other platform policy language proposals the precinct passed shall be reported in the next few days in subsequent posts.