DBWI: No Nixoncare in 1974

[glenn67]

Today marks the 40th anniversary of the Health Insurance Reform Act of 1974 (HIRF), popularly known as "Nixoncare", whose purpose was to provide affordable health insurance to more people.

What if Nixoncare did not become law?

 

[pieman97405]

All in all though, with his foreign policy credentials, Nixon is probably still considered one of the greats.

Probably. It would take something pretty big for him to loose his status as one of our better presidents.

That said, if Nixoncare failed to pass we'd probably just get Kennedycare in the 80's. Ted was big on health care reform, and unless he is denied the presidency I can't see him not trying to get some kind of reform through in this type of scenario.

 

[Tom Colton]

Nixon is probably still considered one of the greats.

Probably. It would take something pretty big for him to loose his status as one of our better presidents.

Great, more members of the "silent majority" hoodwinked by Nixonite propaganda. If you read the books by the Watergate Truthers, you'll actually understand the depth of the corruption of the whole Nixon Administration, and the utterly rotten firmament of all of his foreign policy "successes", such as the Nicaraguan rebels, were built on. The truth is out there - the government just doesn't want you to realise how much cheating and lying got us to where we are today.

(OOC: I assume Watergate and the "dirty tricks" got suppressed, and I'm in-character as a conspiracy nut).

 

[Octosteel]

Great, more members of the "silent majority" hoodwinked by Nixonite propaganda. If you read the books by the Watergate Truthers, you'll actually understand the depth of the corruption of the whole Nixon Administration, and the utterly rotten firmament of all of his foreign policy "successes", such as the Nicaraguan rebels, were built on. The truth is out there - the government just doesn't want you to realise how much cheating and lying got us to where we are today.

(OOC: I assume Watergate and the "dirty tricks" got suppressed, and I'm in-character as a conspiracy nut).

Don't be ridiculous. Nixon was way too damn smart to engage in anything as stupid or career ruining as "orchestrating" Watergate. He won one of the greatest victories in political history.

 

[Kingfish]

Great, more members of the "silent majority" hoodwinked by Nixonite propaganda. If you read the books by the Watergate Truthers, you'll actually understand the depth of the corruption of the whole Nixon Administration, and the utterly rotten firmament of all of his foreign policy "successes", such as the Nicaraguan rebels, were built on. The truth is out there - the government just doesn't want you to realise how much cheating and lying got us to where we are today.

(OOC: I assume Watergate and the "dirty tricks" got suppressed, and I'm in-character as a conspiracy nut).

Now you're just being ridiculous. Nixon may have played some dirty tricks against the Democrats, but it makes no sense for him to have wiretapped the DNC. Speaking of Nicaragua, it really isn't Nixon's most important foreign policy achievement. Going to China and détente are far more important.

 

[Pseudo]

Don't be ridiculous. Nixon was way too damn smart to engage in anything as stupid or career ruining as "orchestrating" Watergate. He won one of the greatest victories in political history.

Too right, and the ridiculous attempts to link the whole thing in to those two journalists who were murdered in that mugging is just plain insulting.

 

[Tom Colton]

Look, it takes either monumental foolishness or malevolent interference could lead to George Gorram McGovern. Hanlon's Law and all, but there is no way on earth that radical could in any way represent the will of the Democratic Party, given how many other strong candidates there were.

I brought up Nicaragua because that's the one with the most CIA interference - just read Genl. North's exposé he published in London. The Iranian Shah also gets implicated heavily - something of an embarrassment to the current Republicans crowing about their "Pax Persiana", to say the least. Chinese and Russian rapprochement were more Kissinger's successes than Nixon's.

 

[Realpolitik]

Well, we still got FAP and Project Independence, right? That counts for something in domestic policy, and the former still acts as a help during the hard economic times, especially with Reagan becoming an influence in the party. People back then couldn't predict who would take power.

Then again, if Nixon couldn't get health care through, he wouldn't have a prayer with FAP. I remember that was a much bloodier fight than CHIP, because it really was meant to mess with the Democrats-public support among the Silent Majority was overwhelming, but a lot of Congressmen would lose constituents and favors. It was really resented when Nixon went to the people to force their hand, and that led to the messes of the next couple years.

Definitely, without Nixoncare, his good record would be almost certainly all foreign policy. That would be the main thing he was remembered for.

I think health care would have been pushed through by a later administration. Sooner or later, the American people were going to demand a functioning health care system.

 

[Realpolitik]

Great, more members of the "silent majority" hoodwinked by Nixonite propaganda. If you read the books by the Watergate Truthers, you'll actually understand the depth of the corruption of the whole Nixon Administration, and the utterly rotten firmament of all of his foreign policy "successes", such as the Nicaraguan rebels, were built on. The truth is out there - the government just doesn't want you to realise how much cheating and lying got us to where we are today.

(OOC: I assume Watergate and the "dirty tricks" got suppressed, and I'm in-character as a conspiracy nut).

We got another nut in the house. Nixon undoubtedly played hard ball politics, and given the evidence that has come out since those years, was flat out amoral at times, but there is no evidence he was corrupt. And hey, Somoza might have been a turd, but no doubt the Sandanistas, as well as any opposition to them, would have been worse. Can you imagine all the wars that might have broken out in Central America if there were threats of leftists, especially with the right wing causing more trouble by 1975? Nixon had to throw them a bone after stealing the Democrats clothes on a lot of issues, and doing some liberal things beyond the hopes of what a Democrat could have done after 1968. Not to mention some of the rumors of drugs among the various right wing groups that we would end up supporting.

Central America all these years is peaceful and developing. Chaos might have disrupted that.

OOC: Nice nut impression! BTW, Nixon, while breaking the law and running roughshod over the Constitution, wasn't personally corrupt-he was flat out uninterested in wealth*, he wanted power-and the Nixon White House actually wasn't all that bad in that area compared to others. Of course, given some of what they did, corruption looks like the lesser evil. This is part of why I keep saying Nixon was a weird politician and man in general-he didn't really care about money or being loved like most politicians do, and loved being a policy wonk while hating the social aspects of the profession-again, the opposite of most.

*Like LBJ, his poor childhood and remembering the Depression gave him some latent "security issues", but in this he wasn't different from a lot of people of his time. But he didn't really care about wealth beyond making sure he had a "nest egg"-none of the millions and private empires that you saw with, again, LBJ. I should also add that both Johnson and Nixon never accepted fees for speeches.

 

[Realpolitik]

Look, it takes either monumental foolishness or malevolent interference could lead to George Gorram McGovern. Hanlon's Law and all, but there is no way on earth that radical could in any way represent the will of the Democratic Party, given how many other strong candidates there were.

I brought up Nicaragua because that's the one with the most CIA interference - just read Genl. North's exposé he published in London. The Iranian Shah also gets implicated heavily - something of an embarrassment to the current Republicans crowing about their "Pax Persiana", to say the least. Chinese and Russian rapprochement were more Kissinger's successes than Nixon's.

The Democrats were going nuts and imploding. They WERE that foolish-after all, my party was the same in 1964. It's why so many old line Democrats ended up becoming supporters of Nixon's new movement-in the fight against Goldwaterism and McGovernism.

Then clearly, you've never heard the tapes. Nixon was the driver of these policies, and Kissinger has never pretended otherwise.

OOC: The purpose of the tapes was to make sure people didn't think stuff like that.

Meh. Realpolitik isn't pretty at times, my friend, but it pays off. And I fail to see how the Pax Persiana is somehow discredited by some Nicaraguan nonsense.

OOC: Without a Watergate leading eventually to the modern day, post-Reagan right, it's probable that I would be a Nixonite Republican or at least a conservative, Nixon supporting Democrat-which is "socialist" by today's standards. Reagan might still come to power-I really don't know. I still think a rightward economic trend is likely-at least, I hope so. Deng and Maggie would still come to power, so... But I just don't see current "conservatism" existing without a MASSIVE distrust of government and the media, which can be tied to Watergate. What Democrats really failed-and fail-to realize was the big winner of Watergate in the long term was the conservative wing of the GOP.

 

[Tom Colton]

The Democrats only went McGovern's "way" after Muskie had been discredited, Humphrey's name tarred and, most critically, RFK assassinated. Nixon knew how dangerous Bobby Kennedy was; he had strong support after the JFK assassination (I'm not one of those nuts; LHO probably acted alone), but Edwin Grace James? There's a long trail of evidence leading from him; follow the money and you end up with Tricky Dick every time.

Read North's "Oil For Guns". It's all in there; the manipulation, the arms supplies, selective assassination of "radicals" such as Khomeini to ensure that Reza Pahlavi held his rotting throne. We're in a world where the Attorney-General of the United States acts as judge, jury and executioner for all of America's nebulous and mutable enemies.

If you refuse to educate yourself on the fundaments of these issues, I see no point continuing this discussion.

OOC: (╯°□°)╯︵ ┻━┻

 

[Realpolitik]

The Democrats only went McGovern's "way" after Muskie had been discredited, Humphrey's name tarred and, most critically, RFK assassinated. Nixon knew how dangerous Bobby Kennedy was; he had strong support after the JFK assassination (I'm not one of those nuts; LHO probably acted alone), but Edwin Grace James? There's a long trail of evidence leading from him; follow the money and you end up with Tricky Dick every time.

Read North's "Oil For Guns". It's all in there; the manipulation, the arms supplies, selective assassination of "radicals" such as Khomeini to ensure that Reza Pahlavi's held his rotting seat. We're in a world where the Attorney-General of the United States works as judge, jury and executioner for all of America's nebulous and mutable enemies.

If you refuse to educate yourself on the fundaments of these issues, I see no point continuing this discussion.

OOC: (╯°□°)╯︵ ┻━┻

So the Fraser McGovern reforms were a conspiracy by Nixon? I don't respond to absurdities. You just can't accept that the Democratic reformers and ideologues took over and proceeded to be spectacularly incompetent in 1972.

RFK and LBJ via HHH would have torn the party apart, and Nixon would have kicked the crap out of RFK in 1968. Why would he have him killed? Goes against his interest.

North is just a bitter, angry ex-general who was rejected from the Republican Party for being an idiot.

Reporting you to the mods. I'm so tired of finding nuts like this on the web. We have a rule against conspiracy theorists.

OOC: Hm? I don't get the symbols. Nixon's out of power when Iran becomes a major problem. Assuming he somehow manages to butterfly number 22(and I don't see how, he isn't that popular or likeable), I could definitely see Nixon willing to get a lot "rougher" than Carter in regards to Iran(he won't confuse the Shah), meaning Khomeini is in for a much tougher time, but even he can only do so much.

 

[Tom Colton]

OOC: Hm? I don't get the symbols.

Nixon's out of power when Iran becomes a major problem. Assuming he somehow manages to butterfly number 22(and I don't see how, he isn't that popular or likeable), I could definitely see Nixon willing to get a lot "rougher" than Carter in regards to Iran, meaning Khomeini is in for a much tougher time, but even he can only do so much.

It's an emoji representing a person flipping a table in frustration.

I was being a bit nebulous on details re: Iran, but I reckoned foreign meddling starting from Nixon's TTL hijinks still created some form of Iran-Contra, with Iran as a strong (and pliant) American partner till today. Sorry if that's not too plausible.

 

[Realpolitik]

It's an emoji representing a person flipping a table in frustration.

I was being a bit nebulous on details re: Iran, but I reckoned foreign meddling starting from Nixon's TTL hijinks still created some form of Iran-Contra, with Iran as a strong (and pliant) American partner till today. Sorry if that's not too plausible.

OOC: Ah, OK.


Nah, that's definitely plausible. The dirty laundry is near breaking point, Nixon and Congress hate each other, and more likely than not something will come out. Now, if it's related to foreign policy, Nixon is competent enough to make sure it doesn't harm his administration, and I don't see why it would. But there will definitely be a conflict in this area. Nicaragua would have to blow up sooner though. Somoza didn't fall until Carter. ANGOLA-Contra though...

 

[Realpolitik]

Too right, and the ridiculous attempts to link the whole thing in to those two journalists who were murdered in that mugging is just plain insulting.

I concur. Ben Bradlee had more incentive on having them killed, given how they wrote about JFK's affairs after they were fired.

OOC: Hah! In all seriousness, Woodward is just another reporter without Watergate who possibly won't make it for the paper, and he didn't cause Watergate to blow, he only helped. The Washington Post didn't get Nixon, Nixon got Nixon. Besides, are you really going to believe G. Gordon Liddy's stories on how he was going to "hit" Anderson? The "Nixon ordered domestic assassinations on reporters" theorists need to do better in terms of sources than Liddy's word, seriously.

 

[Realpolitik]

So, anyway, if Nixoncare never passed, do you think that governor of California, Ronald Reagan ever gets into power? I remember that he spent quite a lot of time ranting about "socialized medicine".

 

[Peter Parker]

I think Nixon greatest achiement is forign policy

He was able to secure a deal with North Vietnam that allowed South Vistnam to stay independent, and they united in 1991

And he got peace in the Middle East. He got Israel, Egypt, Jordan, and Stria to meet at Camp David to work out a peace agreement. Israel returned the Sini and Golan heights, and got recognized by the Arab States.

The later peace deal that gave Gaza and West Bank to the State of Palestibe would never have happened.

I also like his gun control act, which has saved so many lives since then.

But, Nixoncare isn't that great. President Ted Kennedy was the one who made it to Universal Healthcare in the 80s.

 

[GeographyDude]

. . And hey, Somoza might have been a turd, but no doubt the Sandanistas, as well as any opposition to them, would have been worse. Can you imagine all the wars that might have broken out in Central America if there were threats of leftists, especially with the right wing causing more trouble by 1975? Nixon had to throw them a bone after stealing the Democrats clothes on a lot of issues, and doing some liberal things beyond the hopes of what a Democrat could have done . .

That's really the interesting thing. The smaller, less well-known examples of 'only Nixon could have gone to China.'

Now, the Nicaraguan compromise was just a basic coalition government, but it seemed to work out pretty well. And throughout Latin America, Nixon seemed to push the straightfoward approach of trade for economic development and international observers for clean elections. And it seemed to work out pretty well, but I kind of think it would have anyway.

 

[Driftless]

Nixoncare

I remembered this regret of Ted Kennedy:

http://www.everydaycitizen.com/2009/09/ted_kennedy_richard_nixon_and.html

"Asked about his greatest regret as a legislator, Ted Kennedy would usually cite his refusal to cut a deal with Richard Nixon on health care.
...At first, Kennedy rejected Nixon's proposal as nothing more than a bonanza for the insurance industry that would create a two-class system of health care in America. But after Nixon won reelection, Kennedy began a series of secret negotiations with the White House that almost led to a public agreement. In the end, Nixon backed out after receiving pressure from small-business owners and the American Medical Association. And Kennedy himself decided to back off after receiving heavy pressure from labor leaders, who urged him to hold out for a single-payer system once Democrats recaptured the White House in the wake of the Watergate scandal.

Thirty-five year later, the single-payer dream of Democratic liberals still remains politically out of reach. But it should tell you how far the country has moved to the right that the various proposals put forward by a Democratic president and Congress bear an eerie resemblance to the deal cooked up between Kennedy and Nixon, while Nixon's political heirs vilify it as nothing less than a socialist plot."

It would seem odd that Nixon and Kennedy would collaborate on health care reform, but that cause was something that was dear to both of their hearts. Ted Kennedy is widely known as a champion of health care. It is not as well known, however, that Nixon too was a strong lifelong supporter of health care.

 

[Apollo 20]

Probably his domestic record is viewed a lot more critically by historians. After all, if you take away Nixoncare, what you're left with is a lot of measures that essentially play divide and rule among Democrats, which isn't exactly a shining legacy.

All in all though, with his foreign policy credentials, Nixon is probably still considered one of the greats.

I don't know about Nixon being one of the greats because I think some of his foreign policy decisions cost us a lot down the road, but there was a lot to his domestic record beside healthcare. The EPA, OSHA and the Clean Air Act were a few.