Great Society and Universal Healthcare

  • Thread starter Deleted member 1487
  • Start date

Deleted member 1487

How would we be able to get an American society like the Europeans? No Vietnam war?
 
How would we be able to get an American society like the Europeans? No Vietnam war?

Americans would have to want a decreased disparity of wealth more than low taxes and higher unemployment (I assume you want increased socialized job insurance and such as well). Just different values. It'd take a lot of time.
 
You came close to it. No Vietnam and Lyndon Johnson may have pulled it off. No Watergate and Nixon might have pulled it off. However the insurance companies will mount an intensive campaign against it making the British Medical Association's campaign against the British NHS seem tame. It was a non-starter with Hilary Clinton. Maybe Obama can pull it off. If the recession affects a lot of American and company schemes begin to fold up Congress may have to act if large number of people become excluded. There is a strong hostility to Federal government in parts of the USA and an erroneous belief thast social medicine= socialism rather than a means of making the American way more humane and ultimately more efficient.

It may come in in the form of means tested benefits but it would be a start.
 
I would certainly never equate the Federal Government with "making the American way more humane and ultimately more efficient." First off, the more humane method may not be the most efficient. Second, the Government never runs anything more efficiently, just more expensively.
 
Government run health care in the US would lead to a marked decline in the quality of care, rationing of health care, and waiting lists for health care procedures.
 
Government run health care in the US would lead to a marked decline in the quality of care, rationing of health care, and waiting lists for health care procedures.

This isn't a forum for a debate on modern-day politics. He was asking about what it would take to get such a program created under LBJ's Great Society.

Take your talking points elsewhere.
 
I'd say that you do need no Vietnam. If you take 'Nam out of the equation, then you're probably not getting the extensive backlash from the student population, and he may even be seen as something of a hero to much of the baby boomer generation. With the college students and younger professionals behind him, he could mount an effective campaign against the insurance companies, and we'd have socialized medicine by the late 60s/early 70s.
 
I think we're looking at three requirements; money, political capital, and a desire/perceived need for universal health care.

The first two can be finagled as other posters have pointed out. Delay or prevent Vietnam and Johnson has the money and political power to attempt it. Delay or prevent Vietnam and Watergate and Nixon has the same.

(It seems odd but Nixon was surprisingly liberal on domestic issues. Among other things, he founded the EPA and seriously proposed a negative income tax. His reasons may not have been altruistic, but which politicians' are?)

That leaves the desire/perceived need for health care and that's quite a hurdle. However, instead of vaulting over that hurdle, we could approach it incrementally.

Instead of a full blown universal health care system being put in place at once, why not a series of incremental steps? Johnson began Medicaid as part of his slate of Great Society programs. We could have later administrations adding to that program's scope and size until an universal system appears in the 80s. Each incremental step "proves" it's worth and sparks the desire/perceived need for the next.

Given American cultural precepts, I think an incremental legislative process that produces universal care over a period of time is far more plausible than a complete system immediately produced b government action.


Bill
 
I think we're looking at three requirements; money, political capital, and a desire/perceived need for universal health care.

The first two can be finagled as other posters have pointed out. Delay or prevent Vietnam and Johnson has the money and political power to attempt it. Delay or prevent Vietnam and Watergate and Nixon has the same.

(It seems odd but Nixon was surprisingly liberal on domestic issues. Among other things, he founded the EPA and seriously proposed a negative income tax. His reasons may not have been altruistic, but which politicians' are?)

That leaves the desire/perceived need for health care and that's quite a hurdle. However, instead of vaulting over that hurdle, we could approach it incrementally.

Instead of a full blown universal health care system being put in place at once, why not a series of incremental steps? Johnson began Medicaid as part of his slate of Great Society programs. We could have later administrations adding to that program's scope and size until an universal system appears in the 80s. Each incremental step "proves" it's worth and sparks the desire/perceived need for the next.

Given American cultural precepts, I think an incremental legislative process that produces universal care over a period of time is far more plausible than a complete system immediately produced b government action.


Bill

After careful consideration, I believe that you're right.
 
(It seems odd but Nixon was surprisingly liberal on domestic issues. Among other things, he founded the EPA and seriously proposed a negative income tax. His reasons may not have been altruistic, but which politicians' are?)

I was surprised when I first learned this, too. He also created the first affirmative action programs and OSHA. I think it was honestly because he was more focused on making a name for himself foreign policy-wise. He, like Eisenhower, was the kind of Republican who on domestic issues was closer to Teddy Roosevelt and Abraham Lincoln that his benighted successors, Ronald Reagan and the Bushes.
 
Perhaps if Truman had made it a priority before the worst of the Cold War hysteria kicked in. Once that happens, it becomes much harder. You can see that lingering fear today in some of the comments to this thread.

If it'd been enacted much earlier, the butterflies would include:

A much weaker Republican Party on a national level. Much like Social Security won alleigiance to the Democrats, so would national healthcare. (And that's exactly why GOP fights it tooth and nail today.)

That means the outcome of congressional elections would be more favoring the Dems for a generation after it's passed. Think of all the close votes that would change and the butterflies resulting.

No bankruptcy for US auto companies today. Healthcare costs under a privatized system made up more than the debt that drove the company to failure. (To be sure, they made other huge mistakes.)

In general the US economy would be stronger and healthier since our overpriced and underperforming private healthcare is an anchor around the economy's neck.
 
Perhaps if Truman had made it a priority before the worst of the Cold War hysteria kicked in. Once that happens, it becomes much harder. You can see that lingering fear today in some of the comments to this thread.

The reason Truman wasn't able to do it wasn't only Cold War hysteria, it also had a lot to do with the fact that universal healthcare meant healthcare for whites and blacks, the latter being a huge obstacle in getting it to pass in the first place because of the Dixiecrats within the New Deal coalition.

If Truman can get enough Republicans on his side to break Dixiecrat filibusters (doubtful at best--the reason LBJ got Civil Rights passed was because otherwise conservative Senators were in favor of them--those same Senators are still conservatives, of course, and probably aren't going to be in favor of something like universal healthcare), he can do it. But like I said, I really, really doubt it. He doesn't have the political skill of LBJ or the sheer amount of staggering public approval or Congressional majorities that FDR had.

A much weaker Republican Party on a national level. Much like Social Security won alleigiance to the Democrats, so would national healthcare. (And that's exactly why GOP fights it tooth and nail today.)

Bingo. Social Security endeared the elderly and the poor to the Democratic Party, and universal healthcare would have the same effect, only with a large portion of the American middle class included in that mix. Undoubtedly, the program would be extremeley popular (as programs that tend to help people out tend to be), and may even result in the Republicans keeping the more or less moderate positions they took up post-Roosevelt. The U.S. political scene might develop much more like the Canadian one.

No bankruptcy for US auto companies today. Healthcare costs under a privatized system made up more than the debt that drove the company to failure. (To be sure, they made other huge mistakes.)

In general the US economy would be stronger and healthier since our overpriced and underperforming private healthcare is an anchor around the economy's neck.

Another point spot on. :]
 
The reason Truman wasn't able to do it wasn't only Cold War hysteria, it also had a lot to do with the fact that universal healthcare meant healthcare for whites and blacks, the latter being a huge obstacle in getting it to pass in the first place because of the Dixiecrats within the New Deal coalition.

Are there any books that touch upon this specifically?
 
Do you really think that the effect on the strength of the Republicans would be that pronounced? In the land down under Labor brought in universal healthcare and are on average about equal in power to the Liberal-National Coalition.
 
I would certainly never equate the Federal Government with "making the American way more humane and ultimately more efficient." First off, the more humane method may not be the most efficient. Second, the Government never runs anything more efficiently, just more expensively.

Providing free medical treatment cannot be regarded as inhumane. Whilst the administration of the sytem is arguably less efficient than private health care it largely depends on the criteria used to define efficiency. However a more healthy population is more able to work effectively and less drain on the economy. It needn't necessarily be provided by federal government suppose it became the responsibility of the state governments?

If various private schemes collapse owing to the state of the economy government may have to intervene
 
A wild guess but LBJs availiable political capital as well as the financial resources availiable wheren't unlimited. Hence, he had to scrap something else. And I don't think it would have been space or Vietnam which leaves other LBJ reforms including civil rights.
 
Top