WI/Challenge: A U.S. with Universal Health Care

Stolengood

Banned
Probably any day before the electoral college votes. I think when Taft dies, the Republicans will endorse TR. Any other choice means Wilson wins.
If Taft were to die less than a month before the election, however, that means the U.S. gets an invalid President for a few weeks who himself dies less than a week before the election.

I'm speaking, of course, of James S. Sherman, who, OTL, succumbed to a longtime kidney ailment on October 30th. This would've made, under the succession of that time, then-Secretary of State Philander Knox a caretaker President for four months.

How do you think the country would react to that? Would the loss of two Presidents in one month warrant a profound push for UHC, do you think?
 
I absolutely believe the most plausible POD is for Ted Kennedy to compromise with President Nixon.

If you go all the way back to the Taft era, medicine was not sufficiently modernized. Medications were crude. Many hospitals were run by religious organizations supported by donations. Doctors made house calls and took some of their compensation in trade for food and goods.

If we look at some of the Taft-Sherman scenarios here, does anybody think that men at that level would be given anything less than state-of-the-art care? Would an unstable presidency have motivated a call for universal health care for the public? I don't think so. People lived, worked, lost fingers, died in accidents (lots of accidents), died of pneumonia, etc. You did not have procedures that could save a life at the cost of five years' median wages. The victim just died.
 
There's plenty of PoDs that can answer the "Challenge" part of the question, but now I'm thinking about the "WI" -- as in, what would be the effects of the US adopting Universal Healthcare? Would, for example, the labor movement be stronger, or weaker, if they didn't have to negotiate for benefits?
 
There's plenty of PoDs that can answer the "Challenge" part of the question, but now I'm thinking about the "WI" -- as in, what would be the effects of the US adopting Universal Healthcare? Would, for example, the labor movement be stronger, or weaker, if they didn't have to negotiate for benefits?
IIRC, the U.S., there isn't much of a middle way between a big corporation and a small business. Other countries have many in-betweens, because they don't have to worry about medical benefits. A small business is constrained by paying medical benefits, while a corporation is empowered by the lack of competition from companies that can't expand as much.
 
Apparently the US pays about double per captia on healthcare than the rest of the developed world. I don't know what that equates to in dollar terms, but would it have much effect on the level of debt the US has accumulated in recent decades? IE would the US economy be healthier if the US had universal healthcare?
 
Apparently the US pays about double per captia on healthcare than the rest of the developed world. I don't know what that equates to in dollar terms, but would it have much effect on the level of debt the US has accumulated in recent decades? IE would the US economy be healthier if the US had universal healthcare?

Definitely. Among other things, businesses would be quicker to expand if they didn't have to worry about the insurance of every new employee.
 
Let's see if we can get even more specific -- say Nixoncare passes 1974, how would the economic transition of the 1970's and 80's (decline of manufacturing, etc) play out differently?
 

FDW

Banned
Let's see if we can get even more specific -- say Nixoncare passes 1974, how would the economic transition of the 1970's and 80's (decline of manufacturing, etc) play out differently?

Well, it would cuts costs for businesses, so we might see some improvement in the economy, though I'm unsure as to how it will affect inflation.
 
Top