Liking Bobby's stances changing with the times. Nice bit of pragmatic realpolitik.
A gentleman never tells.Oh crap, oil embargo is coming, isn;t it?
Yeah, Roosevelt, Eisenhower, JFK and LBJ all appointed surprisingly liberal judges(with some exceptions). With Bobby it certainly wouldn't be any different.Man that's a pretty liberal Supreme Court. Many of the rulings IOTL that favored conservatives would be changed ITTL.
Gonna pm you @olavops later.
The 1972 Healthcare Act
By 1972, the Kennedy Administration had twice attempted to pass a Healthcare act, and twice failed. The first truly significant failure of his term, the 1970 Healthcare Act had been defeated by a combination of filibustering Republicans and discontent southern Democrats. Such defeat was later described by Kennedy's aide Tim McMillan as:
"The wakeup call of our time in the White House. After a very succesfull year we finnaly faced the reality that a lot of people just wanted us to fail. The Republicans of course, but dixiecrats too. It was a big blow to the president, and forced him to tone down a lot of his positions."
The Affordable healthcare Proposal of 1971 was, in many ways, a more moderate version of the one in the previous year. By this time the Rift in the party had begun to heal. Many southern Democrats no longed fought the Administration, while others stood firm on their beliefs that the Bostonian did not represent their party. These would still fight many bills proposed by the President.
And so would the Republicans. Even with the more moderate GOP of 1971, the vast majority would refuse to support the democratic bill. The President was informed that, even after much deliberating and hand shaking and deal making, the Bill would almost certainly fail if attempted.
Instead of facing defeat for a second time in the matter, Kennedy postponed the Bill for the following year, and focused on battles he was more likely to win.
And so we arrive at the 1972 HealthCare Act. Whatever rifts remained within the Democratic Party, they were not enough to divide them on Healthcare any longer. And many moderate Republicans also presented a interest. With 53 senators (plus Independent democrat leaning Henry Byrd Jr.), the democrats had enough to pass the bill. The president was certain this was the moment to strike. There was only one little trouble. And that was the unending Filibuster brought about by multiple Republicans Senators. It made only sense they would do everything in their power to block such a bill in election year, and such a strategy would certainly have worked had it not been for the Cloture vote.
The 1972 cloture vote, passed by a united Democratic party plus 8 progressive republicans (who garnered the nickname the infamous 8 by fellow Republicans) woud lower the required number of votes for Cloture to 60 senators.
The "Infamous 8" would vote once again with the Democrats, and Harry Byrd, ensuring a 64-36 victory for the Cloture motion, putting a end to all discussion around the Heatlhcare Bill and calling a vote.
The Bil would subsequently pass, with 58 senators voting in favor, 36 against, and 8 abstentions. The victory of such a landmark Act would certainly have a hand in Kennedy's re-election in the same year. And it's impacts are still felt today, one just needs to look at the dozens of millions of americans ensured thanks to it.
History of Healthcare in North America, Bill Reynolds.
....................
Even though the story is arleady in late 1973, this is something that needed to be adressed a while ago. Hope everyone enjoys.
Sorry for the delay on the reply.OOoh! Good job for Kennedy! How is the healthcare bill like? I imagine not like the one we have here (maybe something more resembling what the British had?)
Sorry for the delay on the reply.
Picture Obamacare, but with the option of Public Healthcare, brought to you by the Free Health Organization. A new branch of the Departament of Health and Human Services.
So essentially the individual is clearly under no obligation of picking the public option, but unlike OTL, there is one. Of course,the quality of the services provided by the FHO will certainly fluctuate with the times and the investment poured into it.
There's also no crappy website for the service.
Sorry for the delay on the reply.
Picture Obamacare, but with the option of Public Healthcare, brought to you by the Free Health Organization. A new branch of the Departament of Health and Human Services.
So essentially the individual is clearly under no obligation of picking the public option, but unlike OTL, there is one. Of course,the quality of the services provided by the FHO will certainly fluctuate with the times and the investment poured into it.
There's also no crappy website for the service.
Wait... why like Obamacare? Obamacare was based off of a plan amde of the very conservative Heritage Foundation since Nixon's times. Why would Kennedy's follow something similar???
Is it universal? I looked again at the definition of the public option and it's more like "Medicare for More", not " Medicare for All". I honestly thought the public option was a UHC substitute for single payer
So, every American not covered by private insurance will get FHO coverage?
In the sense that every american citizen must now be covered by a health ensurance provider, and such ensurer cannot refuse the patient based on pre-existing conditions and some other factors. The ensurer is compelled by a number of regulations to spend most of it's gains on actual healthcare, and the prices for the ensurers all go down significantly, with no sudden fluctuations permitted without a heavy fine. The ensurance business had (and has) considerable power and influence in the U.S., and the idea of hitting them too hard, and implementing "free social services for all", still feels like cursed socialism to many. So that's why it doesn't resemble more something we see in England.
Exactly, if you don't get coverage from a private ensurer, you get from the FHO. It's mandatory. Most who can pay, however, will still favor private ensurer's, since their services will for the most part still be superior to the public sector.
In the sense that every american citizen must now be covered by a health ensurance provider, and such ensurer cannot refuse the patient based on pre-existing conditions and some other factors. The ensurer is compelled by a number of regulations to spend most of it's gains on actual healthcare, and the prices for the ensurers all go down significantly, with no sudden fluctuations permitted without a heavy fine. The ensurance business had (and has) considerable power and influence in the U.S., and the idea of hitting them too hard, and implementing "free social services for all", still feels like cursed socialism to many. So that's why it doesn't resemble more something we see in England.
Exactly, if you don't get coverage from a private ensurer, you get from the FHO. It's mandatory. Most who can pay, however, will still favor private ensurer's, since their services will for the most part still be superior to the public sector.
So the Dems compromised with the GOP alot sooner then?
Well, as i explained in the story, Kennedy's original proposal was more radical, but after it failed he adopted a more moderate one. But i don't understand what you were expecting from UHC exactly. Were you expecting there to be only the public option?
It was more the mechanics. The Afforadable Care Act was based on the ideas of the Hertiage Foundation and basically was a conservative idea. The main reason they came up with it was because the alternate was single-payer.
I figure that in this case, it would've been a single payer thing that would've come with adjustment in taxes and so on, especially on the much richer individuals of society.
I see. Well, i don't know if it's just me, but trying to understand the history and nuances of Healthcare implementation in the U.S. is very frustrating. It's not my forte, so maybe there was a clearer option, it's a possibility. But regardless i'm happy with it.
However i do feel that the current state of the Healthcare Act as explained is far from conservative, certainly not by U.S. standards.
..........
But anyway, next update will come sunday.