Republican plan to eliminate Medicare

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by Riot

True about the 1960's.

Not really. The history of gov't provided health care is long and winding. The SSA website has a good summary. Here's the page on the post-WW2 period through the Truman years, which is when discussion of a national health care system was at its height:

http://www.ssa.gov/history/corningchap3.html

Highlights:

<In sum, the Wagner-Murray-Dingell bill was the victim of a cautious Congress, massive resistance by a prestigious and vitally affected interest group, sympathy for the AMA's position from an imposing array of nonmedical groups, a lack of wholehearted support from some of the key proponents, considerable antipathy from the press, the rapid growth of private insurance, and, finally, of a hostile political climate.>

And:
<Years later, President Truman wrote: "I have had some bitter disappointments as President, but the one that has troubled me most, in a personal way, has been the failure to defeat the organized opposition to a National compulsory health insurance program. But this opposition has only delayed and cannot stop the adoption of an indispensable Federal health insurance plan.">

(Oh, Harry; you were such an optimist)

It's easy to credit our Presidents with dictatorial powers (and Shrub and Darth Cheney sure gave a good go at it), but laws are not written by Presidents; they're written by Congress. A President can push for an agenda (and Johnson was a bully and rammed a lot through, no question) but they don't govern by fiat.

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

Not really. The history of gov't provided health care is long and winding. The SSA website has a good summary. Here's the page on the post-WW2 period through the Truman years, which is when discussion of a national health care system was at its height:

http://www.ssa.gov/history/corningchap3.html

Highlights:

<In sum, the Wagner-Murray-Dingell bill was the victim of a cautious Congress, massive resistance by a prestigious and vitally affected interest group, sympathy for the AMA's position from an imposing array of nonmedical groups, a lack of wholehearted support from some of the key proponents, considerable antipathy from the press, the rapid growth of private insurance, and, finally, of a hostile political climate.>

And:
<Years later, President Truman wrote: "I have had some bitter disappointments as President, but the one that has troubled me most, in a personal way, has been the failure to defeat the organized opposition to a National compulsory health insurance program. But this opposition has only delayed and cannot stop the adoption of an indispensable Federal health insurance plan.">

(Oh, Harry; you were such an optimist)

It's easy to credit our Presidents with dictatorial powers (and Shrub and Darth Cheney sure gave a good go at it), but laws are not written by Presidents; they're written by Congress. A President can push for an agenda (and Johnson was a bully and rammed a lot through, no question) but they don't govern by fiat.

Eh?

With the election of Lyndon B. Johnson in 1964, Democrats controlled both the Presidency and the Congress, claiming a 2:1 ratio to Republicans in the House and 32 more seats in the Senate. The Democrats in the House Ways and Means Committee shifted away from Southern Democrats, making the committee more sympathetic towards health insurance reform.

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by Coach Pants

Eh?

With the election of Lyndon B. Johnson in 1964, Democrats controlled both the Presidency and the Congress, claiming a 2:1 ratio to Republicans in the House and 32 more seats in the Senate. The Democrats in the House Ways and Means Committee shifted away from Southern Democrats, making the committee more sympathetic towards health insurance reform.

Yes, but by then the focus on national health care had been limited to the elderly, as an expansion of Social Security, because it would be smaller in scope and because health care costs are the greatest cost for the elderly. So while I agree that yes, we'd be in much better shape if the government had had the foresight to institute national health care decades ago, it was pretty much a dead subject by the time 1960 rolled around, so it can't be blamed on Johnson or the Democratic-controlled Congress. Eight years of a Republican administration opposed to national health care between Truman and Kennedy, and a lot of lobbying from the AMA had long since done their work on any chance for national health care.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

Not really. The history of gov't provided health care is long and winding. The SSA website has a good summary. Here's the page on the post-WW2 period through the Truman years,

Naw, we're talking the 1960's - Lyndon Johnson. The last politician - in every sense of the word - powerful enough to have gotten this done. At that point, even Republicans were in favor of social programs and helping the indigent, poor, elderly. Yes, I understand the AMA actions, etc. I think if Johnson hadn't also had to address civil rights and racism, he'd have gotten it done.

My hope is that, with so many states now looking to take advantage and implement advanced single payer systems under the PPACA (rather than taking the less-inclusive fed program) - people will see how well this works, and it will spread.

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by Riot

Naw, we're talking the 1960's - Lyndon Johnson. The last politician - in every sense of the word - powerful enough to have gotten this done. At that point, even Republicans were in favor of social programs and helping the indigent, poor, elderly. Yes, I understand the AMA actions, etc. I think if Johnson hadn't also had to address civil rights and racism, he'd have gotten it done.

My hope is that, with so many states now looking to take advantage and implement advanced single payer systems under the PPACA (rather than taking the less-inclusive fed program) - people will see how well this works, and it will spread.

Again, Riot, I have to disagree with you. Johnson didn't have the power to get an already dead idea through Congress- universal health care failed under Truman's administration. I'm not disputing Johnson was a remarkably effective bully, but the passage of the Civil Rights Act also benefited, frankly, from Kennedy's assassination. As did, unfortunately, the escalation in Vietnam. No one wanted to go against the wishes of the dead martyr. And, as Johnson said when he signed the Civil Rights Act, it cost the Democrats the South.

Johnson's big focus was on poverty, and health care, at the time, was more likely to impoverish the elderly than it was the younger population. Now, of course, it's likely to bankrupt people at all income levels other than the super-rich.

Johnson's a tough President for America to come to terms with. The last liberal President, one who really sought to alleviate the suffering of the poorest of the poor, but also the one who escalated Vietnam and sent thousands of boys to die, even after he knew the war couldn't be won.

Mind you, I still agree with you that universal health care would be cheaper and better for us. Vermont is apparently taking steps towards it.