Clinton/Congress pass major healthcare legislation

What if Clinton's proposed major reform of healthcare had passed Congress in 1995 under Clinton's promise for stronger bi-partisan negotiations?
 
The problem is that by 1995, the "Republican Revolution" had taken over the congress. Not sure if there will be enough republican votes for this plan.

Another thing, what types and how far do these reforms go? Taxes may go up even more to compensate for these new plans. Tax increase are naturally never too popular.
 
Another thing, what types and how far do these reforms go? Taxes may go up even more to compensate for these new plans. Tax increase are naturally never too popular.

Actually the US government pays more per capita in healthcare than Canada, France, Japan, the UK, etc…—you know, all those places with socialized healthcare. They don't get better outcomes for it either.

Comprehensive healthcare reform could actually save the government money, and it would lift a very large burden off corporations (especially heavy industry with legacy costs) which would increase American global competitiveness.

And tax increases on rich people, combined with tax cuts for the middle class…*an easy sale.


As for passing it, one of the reasons Clinton got hammered in '94 was because of the Perot (i.e. progressive/populist) voters. Now sure, he was going to lose the Southern Democrat seats anyway due to retirement and demographic changes but he could have held on and even picked up seats in the Northern belt—basically see all the states where Perot did well.


So. POD. Clinton has a better handle on his legislative priorities and he ties two bills together forcing them through under the budget reconciliation process—which means no filibusters are allowed—the two bills being middle class tax cuts (as he promised but not deliver, OTL) and healthcare not run by his wife and idiotic company.

It's politically harder for Republicans and Democrats to vote against healthcare with tax cuts attached and no filibusters allowed, and in the ATL Clinton is working much harder on legislation and the selling of it.

Healthcare + tax cuts pass in middle 1993, the Republicans pick up some Southern seats in '94 but lose a bunch of seats in Perot leaning states.

Clinton (and America) wins. The Republicans lose a large chunk of their support as healthcare is seen as better than tax cuts and Clinton can get re-elected in '96 without having to triangulate which results in a marginally less centrist Clinton.

That said, Clinton still is crippled over Lewinsky in his second term and will probably still pass all the deregulation he did IOTL, leading to large problems in the ATL (as IOTL) around now.


Let this be a lesson: even a successful Clinton Presidency doesn't fix that much by 2008-10, unless he is followed by someone who believes in regulation and is against the Fed created economic bubbles.

That said, healthcare sure would help consumer confidence in the economy no matter how badly mismanaged regulation, banks, housing, etc…*is.
 
I suspect that it would have helped if Hilary had gone for a straightforward National Health systme rather than trying to keep a role for the insurance bloodsuckers.
 
I suspect that it would have helped if Hilary had gone for a straightforward National Health systme rather than trying to keep a role for the insurance bloodsuckers.

She wasn't qualified to run it, full stop.

If healthcare were to pass it would have to be done with an entirely different team than OTL.
 
Top