CHIP gets the Green light from Ted Kennedy

Well, we get a much earlier (and somewhat stronger) version of the Affordable Care Act (one with a public option, yay!). Anyways, based on what has happened in other countries doing similar things, by 2000 we have pretty much universal coverage and lower per capita health care costs. The biggest thing this could affect is the 1980 election; might more accessible health care make workers feel enough better that they go for Carter instead of Reagan? (Will Carter even run in 1976? For that matter, will Nixon necessarily fall at this point?) But even if the 1980 election is nothing like OTL, it will have a big impact on future match-ups between the left and right.
 
If it does, then healthcare is off the table as a political issue. Since it is Nixon's idea, the GOP cannot repudiate it later. The same goes for EMK and the Dems. This is still too late to save Nixon's presidency, but he gets major bonus points in the historical rankings for UHC- something that even FDR and LBJ didn't accomplish at the height of their powers.
 
The real question is, with healthcare a much lesser point, what becomes the defining issue for liberals? Immigration, perchance? Energy and the environment are still big Nixon territory, and big for his successor Ford as well...
 
Well, we get a much earlier (and somewhat stronger) version of the Affordable Care Act (one with a public option, yay!). Anyways, based on what has happened in other countries doing similar things, by 2000 we have pretty much universal coverage and lower per capita health care costs. The biggest thing this could affect is the 1980 election; might more accessible health care make workers feel enough better that they go for Carter instead of Reagan? (Will Carter even run in 1976? For that matter, will Nixon necessarily fall at this point?) But even if the 1980 election is nothing like OTL, it will have a big impact on future match-ups between the left and right.

Carter can't overcome the bad economy and the hostage crisis.
 
Carter can't overcome the bad economy and the hostage crisis.

Universal healthcare might mitigate the economy enough (both because of the increased number of workers and because obviously a lot more people will have access to healthcare) that the economy doesn't "feel like" such a big issue to so many people, and the hostage crisis might not even happen with a 5-6 year earlier PoD.

@John Fredrick Parker: Just because Nixon did a lot with energy and the environment doesn't mean liberals today don't care about those areas, though. And those will be much bigger issues as science marches into the early '80s (I have a Physics Today talking about global warming and how we'll need to start a net global CO2 emission reduction around 2020 from 1983!) than immigration could possibly be.
 
Regarding Carter: In True Compass, Kennedy admits that he challenged Carter mainly on ideological grounds, ie "Fuck the DLC, No Deal but the New Deal." (Of course, being a weak president and holding petty grudges against Carter factor in as well) I can taste the irony, but each to his own. If Reagan is nominated, he (thankfully) beats Carter. If Ford is nominated, then it's a toss-up.
 
How dies the CHIP program cancel the hostage crisis?

Butterfly effect. You can't rely on much of anything staying the same. The general trends of the Iranian Revolution will still play out- but an alternate political situation changes a lot of the individual events.
 
I think Ford would still get the nomination in '76. And maybe with the good vibes from CHIP, he gets elected to a term of his own. If that were so, he'd probably be succeeded by a Democrat in '80. The republicans would have been in charge for over a decade by that point, so I think Americans would want a change.
 
How dies the CHIP program cancel the hostage crisis?

As AngleAngel and theReturner say, the effects of passing this (especially on the US political scene) are likely so great that the hostage scenario plays out completely differently. People who are more hard-line against the Islamic Revolution might be in the State Department or White House running things, or people who know trouble when they see it and get the embassy staff out before the seizure. Or maybe the military is a bit stronger and the rescue mission succeeds. You just can't tell for sure.
 
I wonder what effects CHIP passing would have on the Libertarian wing of the GOP? Reagan will have a much harder time cutting taxes when he needs to pay for both CHIP and the military build up.
 
Since when did the post-Reagan GOP ever give a damn about deficits, except from 1995 to 2000? Clinton was right- supply-side defies math. Now, if Reagan listened to Friedman and became a monetarist, then things might be a little different.
 
I wonder what effects CHIP passing would have on the Libertarian wing of the GOP? Reagan will have a much harder time cutting taxes when he needs to pay for both CHIP and the military build up.

Truthfully, some tax cuts at the time (early '80s) would probably be beneficial, as the US economy was stagnant at the time and needed help. He may or may not be elected in 1980 in this case, as Ford could probably have run partly on Nixon's successes, particularly against Carter, as he could point out that the GOP was improving civil rights and had dramatically expanded American healthcare coverage. Thus, Ford gets elected in 1976, though by 1980 the country was probably ready for a change. Thus putting Kennedy (or whoever the 1980 nominee is - Kennedy, Mondale, Carter, Hart, both Jacksons (Jesse and Scoop) and Glenn could all run. Kennedy would be the highest profile of these, though people probably would still remember Mary Jo, which could stunt his attempt. John Glenn or Scoop Jackson might have a better chance, and perhaps EMK then goes on the ticket as the VP choice.
 
I don't see a Kennedy accepting the #2 slot under most circumstances. This case is not one of the exceptions. But yes, TheMann is correct- Scoop is the best-qualified nominee. Unfortunately for the Dems, he's a New Dealer on domestic issues...
 
Truthfully, some tax cuts at the time (early '80s) would probably be beneficial, as the US economy was stagnant at the time and needed help. He may or may not be elected in 1980 in this case, as Ford could probably have run partly on Nixon's successes, particularly against Carter, as he could point out that the GOP was improving civil rights and had dramatically expanded American healthcare coverage. Thus, Ford gets elected in 1976, though by 1980 the country was probably ready for a change. Thus putting Kennedy (or whoever the 1980 nominee is - Kennedy, Mondale, Carter, Hart, both Jacksons (Jesse and Scoop) and Glenn could all run. Kennedy would be the highest profile of these, though people probably would still remember Mary Jo, which could stunt his attempt. John Glenn or Scoop Jackson might have a better chance, and perhaps EMK then goes on the ticket as the VP choice.

Hart is a DLC Dem :)cool:), but he's too inexperienced to be the 1980 nominee. As for Jesse Jackson: McGovern Mark II all over again. It would like be running Michelle Bachmann against Obama in '12. 500+ EV for Ronald Reagan- a clean sweep of everything except DC.
 
Truthfully, some tax cuts at the time (early '80s) would probably be beneficial, as the US economy was stagnant at the time and needed help.

Well, tax cuts are basically a Keynesian-style deficit stimulator, only instead of giving money to people you stop taking so much of it. As such, they obviously have a bigger effect on the people who pay more taxes than on poorer people, but the latter make up the bulk of spending (since they spend most of their income). A universal health care scheme is itself an automatic deficit stimulator operating in the 'classic' mode. The main difference between it and tax cuts is that the UHC operates in the opposite direction--it mostly helps the poor. Anyways, the point is that a substantial UHC program will have an important stimulatory effect, would not need any legislative action to bring into effect, and so would probably relieve the need for tax cuts as long as interest rates were increased (as they were starting under Carter). In fact, it might even have a bigger effect than tax cuts, but that's controversial.
 
Hart is a DLC Dem :)cool:), but he's too inexperienced to be the 1980 nominee. As for Jesse Jackson: McGovern Mark II all over again. It would like be running Michelle Bachmann against Obama in '12. 500+ EV for Ronald Reagan- a clean sweep of everything except DC.

I fully agree, I was merely saying would run and make a major impact. I would say that the most likely 1980 Dem ticket under these circumstances is a Henry M. Jackson/John Glenn ticket. Assuming they win, if Scoop has his heart attack as OTL that killed him in October 1983, Glenn would take over, probably go for somebody like Carter or Hart for VP, get elected in 1984 as the economy comes powering out of recession, leading to him being re-elected in 1988. By 1992, the same problem with bit Ford (and Reagan) in 1980 comes back to hit the Dems, and leads to a Republican revival. Jesse would perhaps be a cabinet member in President Glenn's cabinet.
 
Well, tax cuts are basically a Keynesian-style deficit stimulator, only instead of giving money to people you stop taking so much of it. As such, they obviously have a bigger effect on the people who pay more taxes than on poorer people, but the latter make up the bulk of spending (since they spend most of their income). A universal health care scheme is itself an automatic deficit stimulator operating in the 'classic' mode. The main difference between it and tax cuts is that the UHC operates in the opposite direction--it mostly helps the poor. Anyways, the point is that a substantial UHC program will have an important stimulatory effect, would not need any legislative action to bring into effect, and so would probably relieve the need for tax cuts as long as interest rates were increased (as they were starting under Carter). In fact, it might even have a bigger effect than tax cuts, but that's controversial.

That's true, and the introduction of UHC would probably reduce Medicare costs, which would start stacking up in the 1980s and 1990s. It also reduce healthcare costs on corporations, which between that and a government more sympathetic to the concerns of American workers might be enough to allow more of the Rust Belt to hang on to its industries, instead of so many of them crashing in the 1980s and 1990s.
 
Top