Medical politics, health policy. Party health platforms, promise and performance.

Health policy in the United States is a product of medical politics. "Medical politics" includes not only traditional patterns of interest group pressures but traditional political party philosophies and patient expectations as well. Characteristic Republican politics reflects narrower governmental spending and greater emphasis on support of entrepreneurial effort. Desired effects will "trickle down" to the needy. Democratic politics tend to follow a more generous spending line, not neglecting the entrepreneurs, but spreading some of the funds around to the needy themselves. In addition, Republicans tend to distrust salaried officials, placing governmental power (through government funds) into the hands of private agencies or companies. Democrats hesitate less to build bureaucratic structures. On the record, both parties follow roughly similar lines in spite of these philosophic differences, which turn out to be differences in style. Both parties have practiced restraint in financing of medical services, only recently undertaking payment for these, and only recently undertaking to pay for medical education. Research has been a favored federal focus. Rapid and seemingly uncontrollable inflation has forced both parties to take a harder line. Political platforms are not necessarily clear signals of eventual party action. Nevertheless, they underline what the parties consider to be the problems as the voters see them and they express what the parties see as the appropriate response to these problems. This paper suggests what the party platforms will look like for the presidential election this year and also what the parties will probably do thereafter.