Universal Healthcare in USA during WWII

Sorry, but I don't understand this. Do you mean in terms of geography or population? And in any case, how does does that prevent a national healthcare system from working?
Both really. And the federal nature of the US makes it harder too. It would get bogged down in beauracracy and funding arguments, and would be prohibitively expensive.
 
Both really. And the federal nature of the US makes it harder too. It would get bogged down in beauracracy and funding arguments, and would be prohibitively expensive.

I still don't understand what you mean by the size argument - Canada is bigger in terms of land area, for example, and with a smaller population, but they seem to have a decent national healthcare system. If the sheer number of people is the problem, on the other hand, then I suppose that could be an issue. Mind you, Japan manages to have good healthcare despite their federal system - okay, they "only" have 127 million people, but when I lived there the only problem with visiting a doctor was getting away from work. Or is there something special about the American federal system that would make it more difficult than for other nations?
 
Or is there something special about the American federal system that would make it more difficult than for other nations?

The states have a lot more power than in a lot of federal systems, and the geographic and demographic issues of, say, Florida and Wyoming are likely to be so different that trying to shoehorn both into a federally managed system would be doomed to failure. With federal subsidies the states could spend it how they needed to.
 
The states have a lot more power than in a lot of federal systems, and the geographic and demographic issues of, say, Florida and Wyoming are likely to be so different that trying to shoehorn both into a federally managed system would be doomed to failure. With federal subsidies the states could spend it how they needed to.

Well then, administer UHC per state, like the Scandinavian model. IIRC, local taxes, not national/federal taxes, fund UHC the most.

Also, in the UK, the NHS is a devolved thing. How about that?
 
Well then, administer UHC per state, like the Scandinavian model.

You can't force the states to do that though, not easily. I guess you could do something like saying "unless you fund UHC we'll not give you any money for Social Security" or something, but I feel that SCOTUS might throw that out.

Also, in the UK, the NHS is a devolved thing. How about that?

It doesn't work too well. See the recent news stories moaning about how someone can't get treated in England because NHS Scotland wont pay the English NHS Trust for it.
 
He would need a healthy supermajority, maybe 78-86/96 Senators, to pass that bill. I think Southerners may go against hospital desegregation that early. And then, if FDR uses his bully pulpit, fireside chats, lobbying, political pressure, etc. I think he needs that to pass the 64/96 Senators for clotute requirement back then.

What do you think will the structure be? Will it be like the British NHS, the French System of mixed single-payer/private supplemental insurance, Canada's full single payer system, or the Swiss/German/Dutch model of mandatory insurance with a public option for Dutch model? Japan I think follows the Swiss model.

He'd probably look to the model that was pioneered in Germany in the 1880s and in use in the industrial world at the time, which was a system where there is a government-administered insurance scheme in which workers, employers, and possibly the government pay contributions to. A fully universal system is more difficult to imagine.

So I don't think hospital desegregation would be too much of an issue, because this would be only insurance. You'd still need doctors and hospitals to agree to treat you.
 
You can't force the states to do that though, not easily. I guess you could do something like saying "unless you fund UHC we'll not give you any money for Social Security" or something, but I feel that SCOTUS might throw that out.

It doesn't work too well. See the recent news stories moaning about how someone can't get treated in England because NHS Scotland wont pay the English NHS Trust for it.

I think we agree on the "not easily" part. It will take some time for an agreement to be hammered out. But by a law, maybe, passed by Congress, mandating coverage per state, but without the "no money for Social Security" clause.

On the NHS, a law should be made that NHS Scotland for example must pay the English NHS if a Scottish folk got injured in London. That's honestly unfair, IMO.

He'd probably look to the model that was pioneered in Germany in the 1880s and in use in the industrial world at the time, which was a system where there is a government-administered insurance scheme in which workers, employers, and possibly the government pay contributions to. A fully universal system is more difficult to imagine.

So I don't think hospital desegregation would be too much of an issue, because this would be only insurance. You'd still need doctors and hospitals to agree to treat you.

So the solution's good.
 
The fundamental challenge to overcome here is that FDR always depended on Dixiecrats in the South and neo-Bourbon Dems in the North for at least part of his support in Congress, which hamstrung his efforts to take the New Deal further into something resembling full on Euro-style social democracy. Maybe if he doesn't listen to the deficit hawks and avoids the late 30s recession while being at least somewhat more successful in his attempts in 38 to 'purge' conservative Dems by backing primary challengers (no recession will help there) then maybe he can get it done, or clear the way for his successor to.
 
The states have a lot more power than in a lot of federal systems, and the geographic and demographic issues of, say, Florida and Wyoming are likely to be so different that trying to shoehorn both into a federally managed system would be doomed to failure. With federal subsidies the states could spend it how they needed to.
State power is basically irrelevant, and the same with the geographic and demographic issues of different states. The only really plausible model for something happening in the 1930s or 1940s is a universal insurance scheme, which means that the federal (and possibly state) governments would simply be paying for people's hospital stays, doctor's visits, etc., but not actually running the hospitals or moving the doctors around or anything like that. Thus, the "geographic and demographic issues," as you put them, would work themselves out more or less naturally.

You can't force the states to do that though, not easily. I guess you could do something like saying "unless you fund UHC we'll not give you any money for Social Security" or something, but I feel that SCOTUS might throw that out.
It would be quite easy, as a matter of fact. Medicaid--which is basically federally and state funded insurance for poor people--was...not easily, exactly, but relatively straightforwardly accepted by every state in the 1960s. I don't foresee states passing up participation in a similar scheme in the 1930s or 1940s, either. For that matter, Medicare--federally funded insurance for the elderly, mostly--has not been controversial or unsuccessful, either.

Essentially, all this challenge calls for is the establishment of something like Medicaid or Medicare that covers everyone, instead of just the poor/elderly, respectively. It's not that much of a lift to get states to accept it, and the size and federal nature of the country isn't going to be a big problem, looking at those systems.
 

RousseauX

Donor
I still don't understand what you mean by the size argument - Canada is bigger in terms of land area, for example, and with a smaller population, but they seem to have a decent national healthcare system. If the sheer number of people is the problem, on the other hand, then I suppose that could be an issue. Mind you, Japan manages to have good healthcare despite their federal system - okay, they "only" have 127 million people, but when I lived there the only problem with visiting a doctor was getting away from work. Or is there something special about the American federal system that would make it more difficult than for other nations?
Canadian healthcare is administered provincially rather than federally
 
@Armored Diplomacy, may I ask, while you say the German model of insurance may be plausible, how about the single-payer Canadian model?

And addressed to everyone: in the long term, which among the world's UHC systems will be best for the US, and best for the world?
 
Top