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.
How dies the CHIP program cancel the hostage crisis?
How dies the CHIP program cancel the hostage crisis?
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.
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.
Hart is a DLC Demcool
, 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.
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.