Health Care Plans Again

I am sorry but this is a long one.

Historically health care plans seemed doomed to fail. Will they again? I researched some history of previous attempts. I learned that no matter which period of time, or which party, the arguments against the plans sure sound similar. The arguments for health care plans are similar. It is just that as time progressed the costs and the problems grew. So put it off again and let's talk about the costs to our kids and grandkids.

"When on July 30, 1965, President Lyndon B. Johnson signed Medicare into law at the Harry S. Truman library, he said that it "all started really with the man from Independence".**

*Poen, Monte M.,"National Health Insurance", in The Harry S. Truman Encyclopedia, ed. Richard S. Kirkendall (Boston: G.K. Hall & Co, 1989): 251 http://www.trumanlibrary.org/anniversaries/healthprogram.htm

The above website is excellent for research on former President Truman's views and ideas on health care in the U.S.

Here is the similar health care plan:

“The most controversial aspect of the plan was the proposed national health insurance plan. In the November 19th address, President Truman called for the creation of a national health insurance fund, to be run by the federal government. This fund would be open to all Americans, but would remain optional. Participants would pay monthly fees into the plan, which would cover the cost of any and all medical expenses that arose in a time of need. The government would pay for the cost of services rendered by any doctor who chose to join the program. In addition, the insurance plan would give a cash balance to the policy holder to replace wages lost due to illness or injury.”

Here is the similar argument against it. Just not the communist part. Now it is the we don't want to be European stuff.

“...The American Medical Association (AMA) launched a spirited attack against the bill, capitalizing on fears of Communism in the public mind. The AMA characterized the bill as "socialized medicine", and in a forerunner to the rhetoric of the McCarthy era, called Truman White House staffers "followers of the Moscow party line".* Organized labor, the main public advocate of the bill, had lost much of it's goodwill from the American people in a series of unpopular strikes. Following the outbreak of the Korean War, President Truman was finally forced to abandon the W-M-D Bill.” (same site)

Another piece of history:

“...Going as far back as pre-Revolutionary War America, virtually the only support for primary care services to the poor in the United States came via local government in the form of either payments to private physicians or the hiring of a nurse or part-time physician within the local public health department.”

Article: the AMA Faces Down FDR and Wins Physician Executive, Jan-Feb, 1993 by Norbert Goldfield

found here http://www.bnet.com

Very good articles from Norbert Goldfield on health care. I recommend you read them all. In another I found this synopsis on Eisenhower's plan.

In particular, Eisenhower recommended the "establishment of a limited federal reinsurance service to encourage private and not-for-profit health insurance organizations to offer broader health protection to more families.

...It indicates why the President of the AMA warned in his annual address to the House of Delegates that "our economic problems are not solved....As a matter of fact, these problems have increased. The socialistic trend and government intrusion into the business and affairs of the people have shown little evidence of change. The greatest battle for the preservation of democracy is yet to come.

For another, easier way to follow basic history of attempts to have any kind of health care insurance whether government or the business sector try this site: http://www.pbs.org/healthcarecrisis/history.htm

I refer again to Norbert Goldfield writing in another history of health care article in 1992. On Nixon's attempt to reform health care:

“Nixon's proposal, Family Health Insurance Plan (FHIP), called for a subsidized program for basic private insurance for low-income families and for all employers to provide private health insurance for employees and dependents. Nixon's employer mandate proposal may sound familiar, as it is very similar to Senator Edward Kennedy's current legislative proposal. When asked about this odd juxtaposition, Kennedy stated that he simply wants some form of health care legislation enacted into law.”

According to Mr. Goldfield's historical health care articles Nixon actually left much of his domestic policy to others as he felt foreign affairs were his strong suit.

The same old socialized medicine arguments came up along with others.

Health care became an issue for Reagan by the time he ran for President. Read debates with Pres. Carter for some. He was at one time hired to read a script for the AMA against Medicare and Medicaid. President Reagan did make cuts to the Carter health care budget. I found that somewhere. President Reagan is hard to research-his acting gets in the way.

So now I think I see that no matter how much the “middle-class” wants health care for all and is even willing to pay for it not much gets done. Mr. Goldfield discusses the reasons using the book, Thinking in Time; the Uses of History for Decision makers, by Richard Neustadt and Ernest May. Go to the 1992 article on Nixon and health care to get an overview of some of the book and the theories and recommendations. http://www.bnet.com

The way I see it this is like putting off so many things. Maybe like not weatherproofing or not putting in a new furnace. I could go on but let's use the example of a needing a new roof for a house for many years.

If you had done it when you first knew there was a problem (let's say 15 yrs.) it would have cost $6000 for the whole roof. You were probably better able to afford it then. Now, it will cost $6000 for ½ of the roof and the $6000 is very hard to come by. At least it would be for me. In the meantime, you lived with leaks and a yearly do it yourself sort-of fix. A ceiling may be partially ruined and you probably have mold hiding somewhere.

If you still don't fix it, your investment is going to drop even more than it has and your kid, the one that inherits, is at best ending up with less. At best he/she will end up spending more money than they can get back.

How is that for a scenario of “put off 'till tomorrow what you could do today” and the costs. So think about that scenario when you hear about the costs to future generations. And remember the “socialist” argument has been around forever in one flavor or another. It used to be called communistic now that isn't useful so it is just the dreaded socialism. And costs go up and profits go up and fewer people get health care.

Your insurance company, if you have one, is already telling you and your doctor what procedures you can or can not have. Sometimes you are the one paying them to tell you. The drug insurance, if you have it, is telling you and your doctor what drugs you must “try” first before you can take what you and your doctor have decided is the best for your body. Your doctor, if he or she is a decent one, is putting up with insurance companies not paying them for weeks. Your doctor, if he or she is not so decent, is charging more to make up for that and more. If you live in a rural or outlying area you don't always have good access to health care because there aren't enough of you to make it pay or you don't have the facilities and equipment.

Discretionary Spending?

This is a long one so be sure you have time to read it and study it. I am still doing research.


I started researching defense spending as part of the US Budget. Really I wanted to see percentages through the years since WWII. But, it is hard to find good solid numbers. I wanted to be ready when the Congressional speeches focused on how spending for defense is not “spending” in the same way the Recovery Act is “spending”. Why the debt incurred for defense is not as bad as debt incurred for other discretionary items in the budget. Is there such a thing as defense “PORK”?

Being a liberal made it harder. Like the media today I found myself bending over backwards, trying hard to be “fair and balanced”. Yet, I find the statistics, especially from the last years, are skewed. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have not been in the defense budgets.

Why am I trying so hard to prove a dove, or such a terrible thing as a liberal, can be fair? I am not sure. It may be liberals, real liberals, always listen to the other side; always give the benefit of the doubt to other ideas. After reading and rereading former Republican President Eisenhower's speech from 1961, I decided to go for it. Sometimes called the military-industrial warning speech, the speech contains the following words:

“...We annually spend on military security more than the net income of all United States corporations.
This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence -- economic, political, even spiritual -- is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.
In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the militaryindustrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.
We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together. …(Pres. Eisenhower 1961)

These past weeks during the discussions of the Recovery Act I waited for someone to bring up the costs of “defense” and someone to counter with the “jobs lost”. Sure enough I read it in articles about the F22. The original fighter was planned in the early 80's during the Cold War. The plane, like most defense spending, is over budget and perhaps has little use these days. Apparently President Obama must soon make a decision regarding the inclusion of the plane in his budget. The cut will affect somewhere in the neighborhood of 100,000 jobs in these days of high unemployment. Gottcha! Eisenhower's words ringing so true in my ears. “Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.”


The above quotes from the speech certainly warned perhaps with a sense of fatalism of our times. The General continues:

“Disarmament, with mutual honor and confidence, is a continuing imperative. Together we must learn how to compose differences, not with arms, but with intellect and decent purpose. Because this need is so sharp and apparent I confess that I lay down my official responsibilities in this field with a definite sense of disappointment. As one who has witnessed the horror and the lingering sadness of war -- as one who knows that another war could utterly destroy this civilization which has been so slowly and painfully built over thousands of years -- I wish I could say tonight that a lasting peace is in sight.”...

The speech ends with this prayer:

“To all the peoples of the world, I once more give expression to America's prayerful and continuing aspiration:
We pray that peoples of all faiths, all races, all nations, may have their great human needs satisfied; that those now denied opportunity shall come to enjoy it to the full; that all who yearn for freedom may experience its spiritual blessings; that those who have freedom will understand, also, its heavy responsibilities; that all who are insensitive to the needs of others will learn charity; that the scourges of poverty, disease and ignorance will be made to disappear from the earth, and that, in the goodness of time, all peoples will come to live together in a peace guaranteed by the binding force of mutual respect and love.”
Public Papers of the Presidents, Dwight D. Eisenhower, 1960, p. 1035- 1040

( http://coursesa.matrix.msu.edu/~hst306/documents/indust.html )

Below are a few links so that you may investigate for yourselves how well we fulfilled the “prayerful...aspiration”.

http://www.armscontrolcenter.org/policy/securityspending/articles/fy09_dod_request_global/#
The above link is great for graphics and text on US Military Spending in a variety of ways. I find this article on US military spending compared to world military spending mind boggling.

http://www.armscontrolcenter.org/policy/securityspending/articles/fy09_dod_request_discretionary/
Is the article on Defense as a part of discretionary spending in the budget
containing this quotation:

“ February 4, 2008

The Fiscal Year 2009 budget request includes $997 billion for discretionary spending, money the President and Congress must decide and act to spend each year, roughly $541 billion of which will go to "National Defense" (Function 050). The "National Defense" category of the federal budget for FY'09 represents over half of all discretionary spending (54 percent). [NOTE: These totals do NOT include funding for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. If the $70 billion requested for the "Global War on Terror" were included in both the request for the Department of Defense and the total for discretionary spending, the percentage of Pentagon spending of total discretionary spending would jump to over 57 percent.]

Want to read the 2009 budget for defense? It has lots of pictures and is easy to read-not like the old days. Of course you are just getting the easy parts.
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy09/pdf/budget/defense.pdf

To me, we have not done well as “an alert and knowledgeable citizenry...” to “..compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together. …”(Pres. Eisenhower 1961). Perhaps all we can do is just keep trying.