Democrats' health plans echo Nixon's failed GOP proposal

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Even before Democratic presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton unveiled her new health-care plan, Republicans attacked it as socialized medicine. They neglected to mention, however, that her plan bears a striking resemblance to changes that were proposed in 1974 — by the late President Richard M. Nixon.

"It was an extremely extensive plan, as I remember, that would have given universal coverage" for health care, recalled Rudolph Penner, a former director of the Congressional Budget Office and economic official in the Ford administration.

Nixon introduced his Comprehensive Health Insurance Act on Feb. 6, 1974, days after he used what would be his final State of the Union address to call for universal access to health insurance.

"I shall propose a sweeping new program that will assure comprehensive health-insurance protection to millions of Americans who cannot now obtain it or afford it, with vastly improved protection against catastrophic illnesses," he told America.

Nixon said his plan would build on existing employer-sponsored insurance plans and would provide government subsidies to the self-employed and small businesses to ensure universal access to health insurance. He said it wouldn't create a new federal bureaucracy.

The Nixon plan won support from a Time magazine editorial on Feb. 18, 1974, which noted that "more and more Americans have been insisting that national health insurance is an idea whose time has come."

Fast-forward 33 years to the American Health Choices Plan, which Clinton outlined Sept. 17, and to similar plans by Democratic rivals Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois and former Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina.

A CBS News poll earlier this year found that 64 percent of Americans support federally guaranteed health insurance for all citizens. Clinton's plan, like Nixon's, calls for building on the existing private-sector health-care system and using government subsidies and tax credits to get all Americans under an umbrella of health coverage. Like Nixon, Clinton said her plan "is not government-run. There will be no new bureaucracy."

Nixon's plan didn't require all Americans to purchase health insurance, as Clinton's does, something that's known in health-care parlance as an individual mandate. Clinton's rival Edwards also favors government-mandated purchases of health care. Obama would mandate only that all children be insured.

Like today's Democrats, however, Nixon sought help for small businesses and sole proprietors to pay for affordable health insurance.

Health care is among the top domestic issues in the 2008 presidential campaign in both parties. Three decades after the failed Nixon plan, the same drivers of debate are at play.

A growing number of Americans — 47 million — are uninsured. Medical costs continue to outpace inflation, albeit not nearly as fast as they did in Nixon's day. And Americans then and now fear that a single serious health problem can bankrupt a family.

If the next president decides to push for health-care restructuring, it will be the fifth such effort since World War II, when the practice of getting health-care coverage through employers began. (This grew out of wartime wage freezes; businesses tried to offset wage controls by giving workers greater benefits.)

The national health plans proposed by Presidents Harry Truman, Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton also failed. Every time, the criticism was the same: They amounted to socialized medicine. The public support for health-care restructuring that built up during the campaigns waned as soon as the revisions began. That's because there hadn't been any upfront discussion of the difficult tradeoffs involved, said Robert Blendon, a health-care historian at the Harvard University School of Public Health.

In Nixon's case, there also was a timing problem.

"We had a few distractions then," joked Ray Price, who as Nixon's chief speechwriter crafted the State of the Union address and other speeches on health care.

Nixon's health plan followed his pivotal support for creating health maintenance organizations. But the effort was sidetracked by the widening congressional investigation into the Watergate break-in and cover-up, which eventually forced his resignation.

"The wagons were not only circling, but they were heavily arming and out for blood. It was very difficult to get anything through at that point," Price recalled.

Nixon first proposed national health insurance as a conservative California congressman in 1947. He grew up poor and lost two brothers to tuberculosis, which marked him for life. He frequently pointed to the cure for tuberculosis as a medical marvel that underscored the need for a public-private partnership on health care.

"It was something personal for him," Price said of Nixon's health-care push.

Despite the heated politics of Watergate, national health-care legislation was proceeding in Congress thanks to a compromise brokered by a young Democratic senator from Massachusetts, Edward Kennedy, a Nixon nemesis.

But then, according to a 1974 political almanac published by Congressional Quarterly, the AFL-CIO and the United Auto Workers lobbied successfully to kill the plan. Unions hoped to get a better deal after the next elections.

The rest was, as they say, history.

Nixon resigned that Aug. 8. Four days later his successor, Gerald Ford, addressed Congress and sought a bipartisan effort to pass national health-care insurance. But the economy soured, Ford sought to rein in government spending and national health care languished.

"Today, I think there's national consensus that everybody should have health insurance. That consensus wasn't there then," said David Matthews, who served as President Ford's health secretary from 1975 to 1977. "There is more of a consensus that everybody should have it, but the real uncertainty is still about who should play what role."

In his 1992 book, "Seize the Moment," Nixon repeated his support for national health insurance, sounding remarkably like today's leading Democrats:

"We need to work out a system that includes a greater emphasis on preventive care, sufficient public funding for health insurance for those who cannot afford it in the private sector, competition among healthcare providers and health insurance providers to keep down the costs of both, and decoupling the cost of healthcare from the cost of adding workers to the payroll," he wrote.

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/226/story/22163.html

[SteveLaura 0]

Every time, the criticism was the same: They amounted to socialized medicine.

What specifically is the problem people here have with that? Apart from the fact that it's a misnomer that uses the scary 'S' word (it's like saying we have a 'socialized military'), what's at issue here?

SteveLaura, ex-UK resident, missing the NHS system.

Edited November 28, 2007 by SteveLaura

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Every time, the criticism was the same: They amounted to socialized medicine.

What specifically is the problem people here have with that? Apart from the fact that it's a misnomer that uses the scary 'S' word (it's like saying we have a 'socialized military'), what's at issue here?

SteveLaura, ex-UK resident, missing the NHS system.

On principle, they are against anything that inhibits free enterprise - the ability to make money. They believe that unbridled capitalism is the only true way to prosperity.

Also, many are against the idea of helping others out through taxation - which to them is a redistribution of wealth. They don't want to pay for someone else's healthcare who hasn't contributed.

I've heard the term, 'Nanny State' used several times here - I'm guessing it's a derogatory label to describe what they think is what the government is trying to do with our lives.

[mawilson 2,133]

Every time, the criticism was the same: They amounted to socialized medicine.

What specifically is the problem people here have with that? Apart from the fact that it's a misnomer that uses the scary 'S' word (it's like saying we have a 'socialized military'), what's at issue here?

SteveLaura, ex-UK resident, missing the NHS system.

Money is the main problem.

Healthcare costs are much higher in the US than other countries - mostly because

we pay hospitals and doctors a lot more than other countries do. Doctors here use

MRI machines and other expensive equipment a lot more than doctors in other

countries do.

Universal health care would be impossible in the U.S. without a MAJOR tax hike.

[SteveLaura 0]

Universal health care would be impossible in the U.S. without a MAJOR tax hike.

Our health insurance has just gone up again. I doubt that our family is alone in that. And yet I am still troubled by the fact that, if I get sick, I may not be covered for all operations or procedures I need.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

I can't speak for others, but I'll tell you what I have a problem with. Actually, there are a few things I have problems with.

1. I have a problem with corruption and waste in government. I have a problem with that in corporations, too. Any time I pay for a product or service, whether I pay a corporation or 'da gubmint', if I feel like I'm paying too much because of internal corruption and/or waste, that pisses me off. I believe the federal government is corrupt and wasteful, thus I believe I will be charged $100 bucks for something that can be done with $80. With corporations, I can choose between competitors. There's only one Uncle Sam.

2. I have a problem with the fact that medical care costs so damn much in this country and the debate is around how we're going to pay for it, and not around actually figuring out why a service that costs so much less overseas costs so much here. The cause is azzholes who like to sue, driving up demand for insurance, driving up premiums for said insurance. Another cause is the artificially low supply of trained doctors in this country, thanks to highly-compensated lobbyists retained by even more highly-compensated MD's, lobbying to make life as difficult as possible for foreign doctors and to keep a lid on the number of domestic doctors produced by domestic institutions. All in the name of quality, of course. It's for the chilrun'. Like hell it is.

3. Why is it my fault someone else has a dead-end job with no coverage???? I got an education that led to marketable skills, maybe they should do the same.

I feel more strongly about points 1 & 2. 3 is more of a gripe than a real issue.

If 1 & 2 are not addressed, the only 'universal' coverage I'd be comfortable paying more taxes for is catastrophe coverage. No one should have to worry about paying for hospital charges when they have a heart attack or get in a auto accident or are shot in a drive-by.

[joelunchbox 0]

I don't believe that doctors and hospitals should bear most of the blame for costs.

As an example, here in georgia, a law was passed to limit the amount that you could sue for. The reasoning was, less payout, less cost. Guess what, in the time between the bill going into effect and the when it was passed--bang! costs escalated for no reason except to make a profit.

We need to stop arguing about whether to have universal healthcare and just figure out a way to do it better, and cheaper than anyone else. Isn't that the american way?

How much money was wasted advertising against universal healthcare and why was it spent? To keep someone in the money.

we need to just do it and stop whining about how it is so bad in other countries. I don't want britain's or spains or france's healthcare. I want the best affordable healthcare we can provide. And we aren't getting now!!

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Healthcare costs are much higher in the US than other countries - mostly because we pay hospitals and doctors a lot more than other countries do. Doctors here use

MRI machines and other expensive equipment a lot more than doctors in other countries do.

Yes, that too.

[Ban Hammer 13,364]

I can't speak for others, but I'll tell you what I have a problem with. Actually, there are a few things I have problems with.

1. I have a problem with corruption and waste in government. I have a problem with that in corporations, too. Any time I pay for a product or service, whether I pay a corporation or 'da gubmint', if I feel like I'm paying too much because of internal corruption and/or waste, that pisses me off. I believe the federal government is corrupt and wasteful, thus I believe I will be charged $100 bucks for something that can be done with $80. With corporations, I can choose between competitors. There's only one Uncle Sam.

2. I have a problem with the fact that medical care costs so damn much in this country and the debate is around how we're going to pay for it, and not around actually figuring out why a service that costs so much less overseas costs so much here. The cause is azzholes who like to sue, driving up demand for insurance, driving up premiums for said insurance. Another cause is the artificially low supply of trained doctors in this country, thanks to highly-compensated lobbyists retained by even more highly-compensated MD's, lobbying to make life as difficult as possible for foreign doctors and to keep a lid on the number of domestic doctors produced by domestic institutions. All in the name of quality, of course. It's for the chilrun'. Like hell it is.

3. Why is it my fault someone else has a dead-end job with no coverage???? I got an education that led to marketable skills, maybe they should do the same.

I feel more strongly about points 1 & 2. 3 is more of a gripe than a real issue.

If 1 & 2 are not addressed, the only 'universal' coverage I'd be comfortable paying more taxes for is catastrophe coverage. No one should have to worry about paying for hospital charges when they have a heart attack or get in a auto accident or are shot in a drive-by.

i fully agree. remember the $500 hammers? just wait until the government is running the health care system.....

[SteveLaura 0]

With corporations, I can choose between competitors. There's only one Uncle Sam.

If I feel that the government aren't handling the healthcare system properly, I can vote to remove them from office - same as if I don't care for their handling of the economy, foreign affairs, etc. And if I want more choice, I can pay for my own healthcare. (I don't know what all of the presidential hopefuls are advocating, but choice is certainly available under the UK's NHS scheme. I got to choose my doctor, and even switched to another because I didn't like him.)

Edited November 28, 2007 by SteveLaura

[SteveLaura 0]

Why is it my fault someone else has a dead-end job with no coverage???? I got an education that led to marketable skills, maybe they should do the same.

It isn't your fault. But, like I've written many times here, I don't live my life in a vacuum. Even people with dead-end jobs help me live my life more comfortably. I need them to continue to do them, unfortunately. I want them to be healthy to do so.

[Dan J 277]

Every time, the criticism was the same: They amounted to socialized medicine.

What specifically is the problem people here have with that? Apart from the fact that it's a misnomer that uses the scary 'S' word (it's like saying we have a 'socialized military'), what's at issue here?

SteveLaura, ex-UK resident, missing the NHS system.

Money is the main problem.

Healthcare costs are much higher in the US than other countries - mostly because

we pay hospitals and doctors a lot more than other countries do. Doctors here use

MRI machines and other expensive equipment a lot more than doctors in other

countries do.

Universal health care would be impossible in the U.S. without a MAJOR tax hike.

Japan does has and uses technology much more so than the US.

But one of the big reasons why our fees are so high, is to compensate for all those who never pay for their care. Either having a bill forgiven or wiping it out with bankruptcy. I addition, those without health insurance generally only go to the hospital when a condition gets more expensive to treat, rather going in early and getting preventative care.

[mawilson 2,133]

Healthcare costs are much higher in the US than other countries - mostly because we pay hospitals and doctors a lot more than other countries do. Doctors here use

MRI machines and other expensive equipment a lot more than doctors in other countries do.

Yes, that too.

VJT - it's mostly that. Litigation isn't as big a problem as it's made out to be.

[Dan J 277]

With corporations, I can choose between competitors. There's only one Uncle Sam.

If I feel that the government aren't handling the healthcare system properly, I can vote to remove them from office - same as if I don't care for their handling of the economy, foreign affairs, etc. And if I want more choice, I can pay for my own healthcare. (I don't know what all of the presidential hopefuls are advocating, but choice is certainly available under the UK's NHS scheme. I got to choose my doctor, and even switched to another because I didn't like him.)

There is no real competition in the health care market. Most people get their insurance plan through their employer, and are only offered one or two options. If you choose your own plan, how do you know it how good it is until you need it?

Even on the provider end, especially in an emergency, your not going to call around for quotes as to who provides the best care for your money. Even in a non-emergency situation, getting accurate costs from providers is not always that easy.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

There is no real competition in the health care market. Most people get their insurance plan through their employer, and are only offered one or two options. If you choose your own plan, how do you know it how good it is until you need it?

I'm not defending the status quo.